When does criticism of Islam become a security concern?

No images? Click here [link removed]

Greetings, dissenters!

British comedian John Cleese faces a counter-terrorism referral over his criticism of Islam, raising questions about free speech and religious dissent in the UK. Meanwhile, a flydubai flight bound for Israel was diverted after its co-pilot attacked the captain with an axe and attempted to seize control of the aircraft. UAE authorities are investigating the incident as an attempted terrorist act, though the motive remains undetermined.

Unbelief Brief

British comedian John Cleese has been reported to Prevent, the UK government's counter-terrorism program, over social media posts criticizing Islam. The complaint, publicized by 5Pillars, an outlet previously sanctioned [[link removed]] for promoting hatred against Jews and LGBT people, alleges that his posts demonize Muslims and risk contributing to radicalization. Cleese, 86, called it one of the proudest moments of his life. Prevent is designed to identify people at risk of radicalization before they become involved in terrorism. A referral is neither an arrest nor a criminal charge, but it raises a troubling question: when does criticism of religion become a counter-terrorism concern?

Some of Cleese's claims concern established elements of classical Islamic jurisprudence, including the death penalty for certain categories of apostasy and Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as a precedent in discussions of child marriage. These are not inventions, or merely historical curiosities. Interpretations of these doctrines continue to inform laws and practices today. Whether Cleese's commentary is thoughtful, crude, or offensive is beside the point. Criticism of religious doctrine must not be conflated with hostility toward believers. Indeed, a 2023 independent review [[link removed]] criticized Prevent for casting too wide a net over right-wing commentary unconnected to terrorism while inadequately recognizing Islamist extremism.

Cleese's five million followers [[link removed]], his legal resources, and a Washington Post column written in his defense [[link removed]] do not spare him the personal toll of having his speech characterized as a security risk, or the harassment and intimidation that may follow. That he has the means to defend himself, and continues to speak publicly, does not make such treatment any less objectionable. And if a mechanism like this can be aimed at the famous and well-defended, consider what it means for those without the same resources: ex-Muslims, reformers, and Muslim dissenters who criticize the faith they were raised in and have no celebrity, or legal defense, to absorb the blow.

Most religious dissenters have none of those advantages. For ex-Muslims, reformers, and other critics of Islam, the prospect of having their speech characterized as a security concern is particularly troubling. England and Wales abolished their blasphemy offenses in 2008, yet this episode raises concerns about whether criticism of religion can still be treated as suspect through other mechanisms.

Meanwhile, in Iran, authorities are finding new ways to enforce [[link removed]] compulsory hijab, including pressure on businesses and restrictions on access to services. The circumstances and severity are vastly different, but the underlying principle remains: religious doctrine should not determine what people are permitted to wear, believe, or say. Protecting Muslims from bigotry and protecting the right to criticize Islam are not competing obligations. A society committed to freedom of conscience must uphold both.

On September 30, the co-pilot of flydubai flight FZ1073, bound from Dubai to Tel Aviv with 174 aboard, attacked the captain in the cockpit with a crash axe and tried to seize the controls, forcing a diversion to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. News outlets identified the co-pilot as Hammam al-Hammami, a 29-year-old Omani national, and the captain that al-Hammami attacked as Smit Machchhar, an Indian national.

The UAE Attorney-General, in a statement carried by the state agency WAM on October 3, said investigators had found the co-pilot attempted to carry out a terrorist act; Reuters reported the same [[link removed]], citing the prosecutor general. Flydubai confirmed that a flight-deck altercation occurred and suspended its Israel routes pending the inquiry. The motive remains officially undetermined as the UAE Attorney-General said final findings await analysis of the physical and digital evidence.

If you found this newsletter valuable, please consider sharing it with a friend—or supporting our work with a donation [[link removed]].

Until next week,

The Team at Ex-Muslims of North America

P.S. We’d love to hear from you! Share your feedback at [email protected].

make a contribution [[link removed]]

Whether it’s giving $5 or $500, help us fight for a future where we're all free to follow our conscience.

get to know more about our mission [[link removed]]

[[link removed]] Share [link removed] Tweet [link removed] Share [[link removed]] Forward [link removed]

© 2024 Ex-Muslims of North America. All rights reserved.

Read EXMNA's Privacy Policy [[link removed]] here

You're receiving this because you've subscribed to EXMNA for regular updates and insights. If you no longer wish to receive our emails, you can unsubscribe below.

Preferences [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed]