In Praise (and Defence) of Blasphemy

Jawahara
I think the word `blasphemy` is a description given by an accuser to something he doesn`t want to hear from someone else. A person who is said to commit `blasphemy` is not committing blasphemy from his own point of view, he is speaking his own conscience.

It boils down to a person`s right to his own conscience. Do people deserve the right to their own conscience and to speak it? Do you want a society where people do not have the right to speak their own conscience and we end up with a society of hypocrites who profess beliefs which they can`t accept in conscience but they still profess, to keep out of trouble?

If you bring it down to the right of one`s conscience, it is easier to understand the protests against alleged blasphemy.

1. Some protests are devices to assert/protect one`s right of one`s conscience to deviate against the beliefs of the majority

There are situations where people protest because they feel they must protect their right to their own conscience. Suppose in India the Prophet or the Pope are insulted by a prominent public figure or institution- this can be taken by some that as people who don`t follow the religion of the majority, Muslims or Christians of India are at risk to lose their right to their own conscience or free practice of their religion unless they protest and take a stand.

It is the same in the US when Muslims, Hindus and Jews might feel they are under pressure from powerful church groups for deviating from the majority religion.

So people protesting perceived insults to their faith can well be (though not always are) protesting to protect their right to their own conscience in religious matters. Such protests are legitimate, according to me.


2. Other protests are devices to deny the right of one`s conscience to deviate against the beliefs of the majority.

The protests against Salman Rushdie is one of those cases. The blasphemy law is another of such devices. Such protests(essentially by the entrenched establishment to deny the right of conscience to those under its power) are not legitimate, according to me. I happen to believe that the mob killing of Mr Ehsan Jaffrey during the Gujarat riots was also a denial of right to conscience against the RSS.


Since I support the right to one`s conscience, I wouldn`t dismiss all protests, I would look at the underlying issues.

thanks urstruly, you made my day..the picture was better than the accompanying thousand words.

here is the ulltimate blashphemy

Re: # 71

Hi. I was just browsing through this board when I came across your post. The picture and your following comment made me look into something.

Your comment:

[This picture was probably taken at a fashion show since the lady is a fashion model. She is probably promoting the undergarments that she is wearing.]

The model is not promoting any undergarment in this picture. I think her curves may have misled you. I recommend checking her website on http://www.lakshmifilms.com.

[Padma Lakshmi achieved the ultimate in culinary status in publishing her world renowned cookbook, Easy Exotic. Along with some delicious snapshots of Padma caught in the act of cooking, the book features recipes for a delicious low fat diet based upon her own experimentation over the years. As a testament to its promise, Easy Exotic was awarded Best First Book at the 1999 World Cookbook Awards at Versailles.

This capacity for creativity is precisely what makes Ms. Lakshmi such a brilliant chef. Perusing the markets by day, her eye for potential taste is uncanny, while her ability to concoct recipes on the fly manifests her natural culinary instincts.

Currently, Padma is at home creating fresh fare for her next cookbook that her husband, author Salman Rushdie, is simply delighted to taste test.]

The picture was on the cover of a food magazine, ``Observer Food Monthly``. I am no fan of Rushdie, but I think it is unfair to misuse Padma`s picture to make a point. Secondly, reading her profile will make any south asian man envy Rushdie :) How many models are brilliant chefs?

urstruly,

......... i hate to burst your bubble, but ``normal`` people are not preoccupied with sex like religious folks, pedophiles and other perverts ......... it is a just another thing in life to be enjoyed - like cricket, food, or a walk in the park ........ religious people and perverts have turned sex into a dirty business - one to sell their ideology, and the other to satisfy their sick desires (or make a quick buck).........

........... in my experience i have found religious people, regardless of their faith, to be immoral, cruel, selfish, self-centered and utterly unreliable - it seems that since they have made peace with their god they feel they don`t owe their fellow man (or woman) anything ........... heck, i cannot trust any of my religious friends to take care of my dog or feed my cichlids while i am gone on vacation - they simply wouldn`t do it because animals are not part of their ``value system``............ their value system does not extend to women, dogs, pigs, ahmedis, infidels and others who don`t share their perversion ..........

......... and that`s why we need blasphemy - to set the record straight

#71 by Urstruly on December 22, 2005 8:04pm PT


That is the reason, Rushdie slandered Holy Prophet (pbuh).


And he`s allowed to do that..The law of the land where YOU live allows him to do that..If you don`t like it, don`t buy his book...

I`d never buy a book written by the cult of dubya but they have a right to publish a book saying he`s freed more muslims than the ummah homies ever will...

In fact, as long as you`re in Detriot(USA), you neighbour can call him Mad Mo instead of adding a pbuh after his name...and he`s well within his rights...



They do it with a calculated strategy that ‘if you discredit the Messenger the Message will discredit itself’. Muslims can see through this.


So if muslims can see through the ``strategy``, what`s the problem...


They will not stop and so will not us.


Sure...don`t buy Rushdie`s books...no one is forcing you to buy them...If you think his book will be banned in the US, you`re out of your mind...this ain`t Karachi pal....

teshah#68:

No, Shahji, I had not read about that incident; in most of the incidents that I have read, the victim of a Mullah`s intervention in domestic situations is a woman and not a man.

As a non-muslim, I often wonder that while Islam strictly forbade worship of humans and idols, Muslims have turned the worship of a printed book and a human to such an extreme that they are willing to kill anyone deemed to insult them.

jang, kaalchakra:

I do not have much knowledge about the etymology of Pakhand. My post was based on the common use of this word. In common parlance, at least we Punjabis use `pakhandi` not only for religious charlatans but also anyone who is putting on a fake act or pretending to be someone or something that he isn`t. We even use it jokingly between friends, like ``yaar kyon pakhand maarda ain?``

Jang, I couldn`t open the link you gave.

Re: # 75

Hamidm:

If obsession with women and sex is bad then you and your ilk shouldn`t be promoting it; and if this is good then you shouldn`t be objecting to others. You cannot have it both ways. That is what I meant by not having any value system. Whenever something suits your purpose it becomes your ``value`` and when it demands a discipline on your part it becomes curse of religion.

urstruly,

...........if values had anything to do with religion young boys wouldn`t be molested by priests and mullahs and people wouldn`t spit on the sidewalk in pakistan ......... and if you were not blinded by faith you would see that the prophets that you worship were perhaps the most immoral of men ........ what kind of man would sleep with his slave and then throw her out in the desert ?........ and what kind of man would fill his stable with a bevy of fillies once the old nag who had his number died ? ......... how does that compare with salman rushdie, whose wife is simply trying to make an honest living ......... even though you might disapprove of her husband, you must admit she is quite a dish andwe should be thankful to rushdie for sharing her with the world instead of locking her up in the kitchen !

p.s why are religious men so obsessed with women and sex ??????

One of our well known blasphemer (Salman Rushdie) has had this to say [source is wikipedia] - i believe the first one was a jab on many well know personalities - from the P of US to the well known fanatics who operate as warriors of God.

``I`ve been worrying about God a little bit lately. It seems as if he`s been lashing out, you know, destroying cities, annihilating places. It seems like he`s been in a bad mood. And I think it has to do with the quality of lovers he`s been getting. If you look at the people who love God now, you know, if I was God, I`d need to destroy something.`` Salman Rushdie on Real Time with Bill Maher TV show, October 7, 2005



``What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.`` -- From The Swedish ``Censorship`` Homepage



``I do not envy people who think they have a complete explanation of the world, for the simple reason that they are obviously wrong.`` --From an interview with David Frost (PBS)

Jawahara does her bit in - and so well does she do it!

`` Blasphemy to me is the domain of a different mind, of a brave person (or a foolish one) but someone who definitely swims against the tide. And that right, in an increasingly polarized and intolerant world, is precious to me. `` Jawahara S

#59 JAWAHARA

``To me anyone who is so upset by blasphemy against their religion as to want to kill someone is extremely weak in their faith not to mention belittling their God who needs protection from some writer or film maker. That`s just my opinion. ``

Killing of a utopia will kill a culture. All the cultures of the world stand on some kind of utopia, there is no doubt about that. Some people question this utopia--sometime they are called blasphemers sometimes they are not. The blasphemer does not know that by striking at the utopic figure, he is inadvertently striking at the culture. If someone tears the poster of pope, or calls Sita a whore or Prophet sahib something, he will kill the culture which flows from these figures, may be utopic.

Jeses, Prophet Sahib or for that matter Galileo were considered blasphemers at their times but they were able to provide an alternate culture. Here,imporant thing is to be noted is the believers are mistakenly taken to be protecting the utopic figures.No, they are trying to protect their culture.

So before you commit any blasphemy, do remember that you might be killing a culture. Do it only if you have an alternate culture for us poor human beings.

Bye.

Urstruly,

First of all, #71 is a very clever response. Indeed. You could pass for an atheist level IQ test with this one :=)

Now to a slightly different point of view.

Did the prophet (PBUH) NOT commit blasphemy when he challenged the existing gods and proposed his (albeit revealed) vision(s)?

Did Mansoor Al Hallaj not commit blasphemy with his An `al Haq?

Hamidm2 has it ``almost`` right in #70-

``.......... blasphemy is just another name for the truth ........... that`s why it should be protected .....``

I use ``Almost`` because there is never a single version of truth in matters of theology, philosophy etc. Even fanatics dont have one version of truth.

Someone needs to write an article on ``what is truth?`` After all.

Jagdishgodbole # 42 I like your nick.

You said:


“This is a straw-man. It follows logically from the article that the same principle that allows every individual must have an unfettered right to abuse, insult, slander, and vex anyone and anything also gives the right to the party being slandered the right to question and argue its case without being constrained by censure or censor. No one said that only one party has the right to blaspheme.”



I am afraid the matter is not that simple that we can just translate it into saying that a certain group is tolerant or intolerant and the other group is insecure or aggressive. Allow me to elaborate my point with an example. Please witness the picture below. This is the picture of the wife of that man who has turned insulting other human beings, men and women, husbands and their wives into an art form. His slanders are admired by his disciples as the highest form of literature and even more than that it has become their gospel truth. This is the picture of Mrs. Salman Rushdi i.e. Padma Lakshmi.




This picture was probably taken at a fashion show since the lady is a fashion model. She is probably promoting the undergarments that she is wearing. But as you can see the faces of her viewers, and as any man on this forum who has left even one drop of red blood cell, would attest that she is in fact not selling those undergarments, but she is selling a fantasy. She is invoking the most carnal desires of men. The lure is what sells here. The lure is what takes man into the realm of his most basal self.

Since it is a universal truth that intentions are the prime movers of man’s actions; so logically, I would say that her husband (and herself) would have intended this act of lying naked before men, first, and then through a logical reasoning they would have reached to conclude that they can go through with this act. It is totally absurd to think that man can do something without intending to do it first. Even when we want to spit, the intention comes to our mind first.

So a logical process that would have crossed Salman’s and his wife’s mind would have been something like this: ‘so what, if men are noticing my body’; ‘its not that they can eat her alive’; and ‘what is harm in it after al etc. etc. So briefly, Mr. Salman came up with a temporary value, that it is perfectly fine to present your woman undressed in from of perfect strangers.

Man is a strange creature that he wants all around him to turn into his image. Probably it is trait he got from God who created us in His own image. So people like Rushdi would want all the people around him to think and act like him. The social stigma that is attached with such an act (undressing one’s own wife before strangers) is also eased and cured if more and more people think like you and act like you. So when people like Salman embark on “preaching” their new religion to other people and its values, they naturally come across resistance from those who have a value system that is completely opposite. There are two component to your course of action when you come across with this predicament:

1. On one hand you preach your values
2. On the other hand you try to discredit the opposing value system

So when people like Rushdie and his disciples come across a value system that dignifies woman with sacred relationships such as wife, daughter, mother, sister, and friend they would try to discredit it. When they would see a value system that raises the status of woman from a prostitute of her body and self to a level where she is human being with thoughts and feelings, they oppose that. When they come across a value system that embeds in woman the self-respect of an independent human being rather than a mistress to serve man’s carnal desires they slander.

That is the reason, Rushdie slandered Holy Prophet (pbuh). The so called husband of a prostitute slanders a pious and God fearing man by portraying his household as a brothel. This is how low they can go.

Mark my words, that today the staunchest believers are those who believe in the religion of “unbelief”. They are the most dedicated missionaries of their “faith”. And they are the most dangerous ones too, because they do not have any values (as I explained in my previous post). They do not have to defend any values. Instead, they want to end any and all values, social norms and constructs. Because every social norm that is good, is because of a religion that has kept the human society together so far. They want to take individualism to that extreme where there remains no difference between man and animal. And we become the society of primates.

Yes! every individual has the right to question. But we must appreciate the difference between “questioning” and “telling”. Reverend Billy Graham, who is the most revered Christian leader of Americans calls Holy Prophet (pbuh) a terrorist. Is this questioning or telling? Salman Rushdie portrays the household of Holy Prophet (pbuh) as a brothel; is this ‘questioning” or “telling”. So Muslims know very well when the response should be that of telling and when it should be that to questioning. Why Muslims are sensitive about Holy Prophet (pbuh), as Dost Mitter asks; the answer is that because, as explained above when atheists, freethinkers, doubters, and agnostics promote their religion, they use slander to discredit the Messenger (pbuh). They do it with a calculated strategy that ‘if you discredit the Messenger the Message will discredit itself’. Muslims can see through this. So the matter is complicated. They are promoting their religion just as we promote ours. They will not stop and so will not us.

...blasphemy is often the truth .........

........... and that`s why most religious folks don`t like it - it shakes the flimsy foundation their superstitions are based on .......... for example, if someone ways jesus christ was an imposter the christians get all upset because, deep down in the bottom of their faith-impaired heart, they know that it is not possible for a virgin to give birth without artificial imsemination and that people cannot walk on water unless it is frozen or they are drunk ( in which case they drown and die ) ...........

.......... similarly, most muslims know that the only winged creatures to be found in caves are bats and no one has seen an angel entering or leaving one............ in the good old days, when dragons roamed the world and men lived inside fish, a lot of bedouin shepherds suffered from hallucinations ............ just because one stuttering fool claimed that he saw a burning bush and another claimed to have talked to an angel doesn`t mean it is true ............ kids nowdays don`t even believe in santa clause even though he is to be seen in malls all across the country ........... maybe we should throw all those snotty-nosed five and six year olds in jail for blasphemy !

.......... blasphemy is just another name for the truth ........... that`s why it should be protected .....

Jang, DM ji

It`s great to find you two discussing the meaning of the word `pakhand.` It is among the most interesting words one would come across.

Etymologically, the word is India`s closest approximation to the key semetic notion of `heresy.` Or even `blasphemy.` (someone please correct me if I am wrong). Neither `adharma` nor `vidharma` quite capture the sense of those constructs.

But this is where similarities end and matters turn really fascinating. In every Indian tradition (ranging from Sikhism to Buddhism, including Hinduism and Jainism), the word is always used to point to the religious hypocrisy and deceptive practices of the religious ESTABLISHMENT. Never ever the views and opinions of those who question and protest against the ways and vested interests of the (politically dominant) religious estalishment.

Thus, it is invariably the `Pundit,` or the leader of a math, or the brahmin, who has been accused of being Pakhandi, or `heretic.`

The underlying text behind the word has been the consistently repeated, implicit charge: people holding (politico) religious power have derived and maintain their privileges and benefits through religious deceipt and hypocrisy.

This has been the stock but powerful message conveyed by every religious reformer. It is the basis on which, again and again, Indian rishis, gurus, and sadhus caught people`s attention, and acquired following. By denouncing the pakhand, the heresy, the corruption of the MAINSTREAM religious leaders.

That is the polar opposite usage of the `heresy` construct than found in semitic traditions. And, a very significant indicator of how (and probably, also why) talk of heresy and blasphemy evoke so radically different reactions and passions amongst us.

To us Indians of all stripes, words heresy/pakhand bring to mind the invariable power-induced corruption of the religious establishment or core. Peripheral actors who rose in India to challenge and reform that corrupted core became our revered sages and gurus.

Semitic traditions, at least along their religious, theological, lines, held fast to their belief in a pristine, uncorrupted core, existing and true independent of the ravages of time. The only corruption over centuries in this view occurred in the form of new movements and ideas threatening the political power of the established religious core or questioning the moral wisdom as enunciated by that core. Naturally, this `corruption,` arising from the fringes, was dealt very differently. And continues to elicit a very different emotional and intellectual response.

Re: # 50

Thats it dear DM. You have woderfully epotimised the issue of blasphemy which is the rage of Muslims, especially of the Paky brand, who are just thirsting for lynching helpless people. This is sheer madness. You might have read a story on the BBCurdu.com about a blas-lynching in a village in Nowshehra distrct of NWFP a few months back. A man who came home tired after day`s work asked his wife to make tea for him. She did not oblige presently as she was reading Quran. Naturally the husband became angry and had a brawl with his wife. Te wife immediately went to the mullah of the village and complained that her husband had blasphemed against Quran. The mullah at once issued death edict against the husband declaring him to be `Wajibul-qatl`. The people carried out the edict promptly and lynched the husband. The interesting part of the story is that afterwards the wife repented and said that she had gone to the mullah only to seek reconciliation with her husband through intercession of the mullah. The police took notice of the murder but with what results no body knows.

This episode goes to show that the blas-lynching has become just a sport for the Paky Muslims, perhaps because they are being prevented by the mullah to have any healthy entertainment.

regards