The Real Blasphemy

roamir mian,

....... as arjun says, you are completely clueless ! ........ here is your latest gem :

``I think similar identical legal limitations need to be put around it for religious sensitivities, i.e. if you are going to make stateements, they better be factual, otherwise you will go to court``..........

......okay, so here is a list of statements which, according to you, should be defended in court :

1. it is not possible for a virgin to give birth
2. man cannot walk on water
3. winged angels do not exist and if they do, they do not talk to people in caves
4. no one can part a sea
5. people who talk to a bush that is on fire should be committed to an institution
6. old men who try to kill their own son are probably suffering from schizophrenia
7. it is not possible to live inside a fish
8. it is not nice to destroy temples and throw out other peoples gods into the street

........... now, don`t you think that all these statements are factual and can be defended in any court of law simply on the basis of common horse sense ? ........... but ? .... but ,what ?

Let`s face it, Islam is a misogynistic religious tradition. At least in the form largely understood, interpreted, and practiced today. We can write volumes (as the author attempts) about how it is `Muslims` and not `Islam` that`s at fault. We can make speeches about how every religion has its bad-guy adherents. We can expund professorially about Islam having given women rights long before...blah, blah, blah nonsense ad nauseum. Islamic canon law (shariah) has the following provisions that even apologists cannot blankly dimiss:

1. A man can divorce a wife directly but a woman cannot divorce a husband directly (no, sorry but a `khula` is not the same mechanism here).

2. A husband can actually beat his wife (yes, yes there are various interpretations about whether it is a beating or tapping or admonishment but again the fundamental principle is there)

3. In criminal procedure (and many civil cases too), a woman`s testimony is worth half that of a man

4. A female non-Muslim captive, married or not, becomes the personal property of the state or her captor to do with as he pleases and it is not considered rape. Apologists defend the practice by saying that the woman has a protector and any child of such illicit union is brought up as a legitimate child of the father.

5. A woman cannot become an imam leading prayers.

6. A man can have upto four legal wives and several concubines. A woman is limited to one husband.

7. In cases of divorce, the father has ultimate jurisdiction over children, though the mother can keep them while they are young.

8. A Muslim man can marry certain non-Muslim women. A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man.

Now please tell me that those provisions are that of a faith tradition that does not discriminate on the basis of gender.

here we go again ! ........... ``Until we address Injustice, Poverty, Education, in the less fortunate world we will continue to suffer the consequences.``...........

translation: there is nothing wrong with us, the jews and the imperialists are making us do it !

............ verily, we are doomed ......

``When our children come to a certain age we tell them to look left and right before crossing the street. And never to cross the street if the signal is red. We inculcate in them at that tender age a sense of awareness, sense of safety, and self preservation.

My thoughts on Mr van Gogh were in that spirit. As denizens of the global village we know the world we live in. We know for a fact that no city or country is outside the reach of bigots and zealots. By provoking them, and by ignoring warning and threats, and by not understanding the ramifications of the damage our actions can cause he was indeed asking for it.``

This argument is a dangerous double-edged sword which is what is so scary about it.

1. There are Americans who are using this very argument during their current rampage in the Middle East - Muslims must just knuckle down or they are asking for it. Should we simply accept this explanation for their actions?

2.Bad things are propagated and taught in schools by certain Muslims about other religions which are deeply offensive to nonMuslims. And for example I myself have been deeply offended by things said about Hindus and Hinduism by certain other Muslims. Are those Muslims asking for it?

3. Your argument also justifies for example the murder of Ehsan Jafry ex-MP from Gujarat who made a speech in Modi-ruled Gujarat against RSS and Modi in the weeks before he was killed brutally during the Gujarat riots. Are you OK with handing the VHP/BJP/etc a justification `he was asking for it, he should have known better`( I am not OK with this justification). Are you comfortable with zealots deciding what we can or can not say or do? Or perhaps your explanation applies only when Muslims get to do the killings ?

4. Your argument also justifies the hounding of certain `blasphemers` in Pakistan - they should have known better than to resist organised zealots who wanted their lands/etc who accused them of blasphemy on not getting what they wanted.

5. Re injustice, education, poverty. Van Gogh`s killer was Dutch-born, presumably he got an education. Ayatollah Khomeini marhoom will not like to be called uneducated and poor, nor would those who spend hundreds of millions of dollars underwriting the apostatisation of Shias though they suffer no injustice. And would it be acceptable if nonMuslims too offered this poverty/education/injustice explanation for violence on Muslims - your argument pre-supposes only Muslims suffer injustice.

195 by Romair

``2. Was it ok for Van Gogh`s killer to kill him for the `blasphemy`. Answer Yes or No.

No. Because he was not acting out of self-defence. He is considered a murderer under Shariah Law also.``

Excuse me dear Romair your are factually incorrect in saying that killing forwhat you consider `blasphemy` is considered murder under Shariah Law also. In this connection kindly see my post at No.94. I reproduce the relevant Hadees here:

Sunnan Abudawud
Book 38, Number 4348:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

This is perhaps the main basis for the `Law of Blasphemy` in Pakistan. But since the Shariah is the Super Law in that country peope accused of blasphemy are often lynched unless they run out of the country. But since the lynch law is now in operation in Europe also where the people running from Shariah will go now for asylum.

(long post: maybe an article later)

Hamidm, Dost-mittar, mohar11, Ralph, arjun, Bina, Saima and others:

There are some basic thoughts that guide me. I have mentioned them here often.

First is : pehlay inssan, phir muslamaan: pehlay ta’aleem phir tafheem: pehlay Khuda phir Rasool

Second: be good. This jokingly I have refereed to as the founding of a new order.. A religion with no holy book, no prophet/s, no rituals. The individual’s conscience being the inbuilt criteria to inform and guide as to good and bad.

And being human, being frail and susceptible to cross currents I do fall off these loft ideals every now and then. But am lucky or resolved. I correct and climb back. And like the venerable Shaikh Saadi said, “I learn from everybody.” I continue to learn not only from the wise but also from the simpletons. My words are there for the record. In the very next interact after Urstruly`s post.

This article has touched up various issues regarding the intolerance of some Muslims, (remember I call them cuckoos and bigots and a minority), the ethics of freedom of speech and expression, blasphemy, response to acts of violence, the role of us…as Muslims, non-Muslims, as citizens of other countries, as denizens of a global village.

In my first response before commenting on Bina Shah’s article I said unequivocally: am against loss of a single civilian life by another individual, organization or state…. in the most controversial scene, partially clothed women are portrayed as the victims of abuse with scars on their bodies, but verses from the Quran are also inked out in black on their bare skin.

And concluded with: …to me this is simply asking for it…

This must have touched off a raw chord in some friends. I also had the temerity to agree with Urstruly some. That I disagree with some was conveniently ignored.

Silence is golden. Perhaps I should have held my peace. But for how long? The current mess the silent majority of world Muslims find themselves in cannot bear anymore silence.

The Silent Majority of Muslims need to speak up. Only then would their voice countering the cacophony of zealots and bigots be heard. This is a long over due and long to be effective endeavour. Hence this attempt to clarify and explain to myself and to my friendswhere I come from. Make no mistake. This is as much an attempt for my sake as for theirs.

Back to that one aspect I discussed and why I felt Van Gogh was asking for it.

When our children come to a certain age we tell them to look left and right before crossing the street. And never to cross the street if the signal is red. We inculcate in them at that tender age a sense of awareness, sense of safety, and self preservation.

My thoughts on Mr van Gogh were in that spirit. As denizens of the global village we know the world we live in. We know for a fact that no city or country is outside the reach of bigots and zealots. By provoking them, and by ignoring warning and threats, and by not understanding the ramifications of the damage our actions can cause he was indeed asking for it.

In the earlier cases of Salman Rushdie, the full might of a state came to his rescue. Taslima Nasreen similarly is under protection. Those who recklessly disturb the hornet’s nest and then fail to heed caution sooner or later pay for it.

We read papers. We watch the media. Are we that gullible?

I am offended by the depiction of Qura’ani Verses on naked female bodies. But belonging to the silent majority, being responsible and sane, I am opposed and averse to taking the law into my own hand. And I would not kill another human being. And there are millions like me here. But, I do know that zealots and bigots do not recognize this. They are prepared to play with their lives and harm those who offend their deeply held beliefs.

This is not a simplistic and foolhardy issue like us vs. them.

Borders, nationalism, religion is a concept alien to natural disasters. And to man made disasters. Religious zeal and bigotry is man made. If we do not speak up then we are seen as condoning it. If we speak up and not do anything to alleviate the problem is much worse.

For the Muslim mess I and we are partly to be blamed. Partly because the world has shrunk. As global citizens we cannot declare it is Muslim problem and wash our hands.

Dispatching high flying bombers and raining daisy cutters has not and would not fix the problem. It will only temporarily deflect. And it will recruit more zealots for the cuckoo pupeteers. Read the full transcript of the Osama bin Bush`s latest video hot.

When I mentioned that apartheid-- of old as in South Africa or the current one in Occupied Territories is our problem, friends here disagreed. No it is your problem. I disagree. Injustice, poverty, lack of education in this world is our problem. We do not live on an island. We cannot seal off. Isolationism is not an option. Or ostrichism as Saima says.

Only when we do our bid as global denizens, regardless of our nationality or religion, to lessen injustice and poverty can we rid or lessen the number of cuckoos, zealots and bigots. And this is for the long haul. And like it or not we are all in it for the ride. Only then would be able to put the Quran between Russell and ibn Warraq and not feel a tinge of guilt.

This was and remains the sole point in my discussion here. Until we address Injustice, Poverty, Education, in the less fortunate world we will continue to suffer the consequences.

rgds,

t

SaimaShah #175: ``1. Was it ok for van gogh to show `naked` women with verses of the Quran burnt on their skin. Answer Yes or No.
2. Was it ok for Van Gogh`s killer to kill him for the `blasphemy`. Answer Yes or No.
3. Was it ok for riots and violence to break out as a response to this murder? Answer Yes or No.``

There are different ways to look at this. Since this happened in Holland, let`s limit it to their society. In the end, the most powerful instrument in that society is the law. So let us look at it based on Dutch (or Western) legal traditions:

---

1. Was it ok for van gogh to show `naked` women with verses of the Quran burnt on their skin. Answer Yes or No.

Yes. According to the freedom of speech laws of the West, he could do that and a lot more. He did not physically harm anyone.

2. Was it ok for Van Gogh`s killer to kill him for the `blasphemy`. Answer Yes or No.

No. Because he was not acting out of self-defence.

3. 3. Was it ok for riots and violence to break out as a response to this murder? Answer Yes or No.``

No. Because the law does not allow physical violence and rioting as a form of protest.

---

Now, let us look at it, from a philosophical and ethical point of view (at least as I see it).

1. 1. Was it ok for van gogh to show `naked` women with verses of the Quran burnt on their skin. Answer Yes or No.

No. There are a million other ways to highlight the plight of women in any society, if that is what the genuine concern of a person is. Humiliation should never be resorted to, specfically when it comes to sensitive issues, like religion or gender etc. I doubt, you would want to let Chowk turn into a free for all about humiliating women. Even though, it is my freedom of speech right to humiliate women and religions, if I want.

This is how people abuse freedom of speech. It is no different than the various pornographic material, which demeans women and claims protection, under freedom of speech laws. Most guys know of a magazine called, Hustler. It goes one level beyond other girly magazines like Playboy. It actually demeans naked women, not just show them. Yet its owner, Larry Flynt is considered a hero in the struggle for freedom of speech, and even had a movie titled, ``People vs. Larry Flynt`` made after him by a reknowned Milos Forman. I think it was nominated for some Oscars also.

There are women on this site arguing that, they will, ``defend everyone`s right so say things, even if they disagree with them.`` Sounds good, in theory. But in your heart of hearts, would you really consider allowing people to mass market movies of 18 year old girls being raped by multiple men, to be freedom of speech. Or pictures of naked women going into a meat grinder and coming out as shredded meat, to be freedom of speech. Or do you think the line should be drawn before that.

I think the line should be drawn before that. Why not? There are lines drawn in some situation. If the Dutch moviemaker had painted the verses on a naked body of me, without my permission, I could have sued him (and would have won). I could have sued him for humiliating me. Ironically, I could not have sued him for humiliating my faith, which in the big scheme of things, is actually more important to most people than I am.

Freedom of speech is a man-made idea, with man-made laws around it. There have been limitations put around it, for individuals` sensitivities and rights. I think similar identical legal limitations need to be put around it for religious sensitivities, i.e. if you are going to make stateements, they better be factual, otherwise you will go to court........

2. Was it ok for Van Gogh`s killer to kill him for the `blasphemy`. Answer Yes or No.

No. Because he was not acting out of self-defence. He is considered a murderer under Shariah Law also.

3. 3. Was it ok for riots and violence to break out as a response to this murder? Answer Yes or No.``

No. Because the law does not allow physical violence and rioting as a form of protest. No, under Shariah Law also.

Bina Shah uses the word `blasphemy` for the act of superimposing the verses of the Holy Book on a naked body.

I am curious - how about the act of not only declaring it illegal for women to either work, go to school/college or to show an ankle but also punishing women for doing any one of these things? Is that `blasphemy` ?

hamidm2 #127
``they do seem to have a rather laissez faire attitude towards their rather silly religion``
Make no mistake about it.You have to go to India and keep switiching the channels on TV and everyday you will hear something stupid-``girl who got impregnated from a guy of the same tribe is being asked to tie rakhi on his hand and make him his brother`` -``young girl thinks she is devi`` ..and all such BS at a regular basis. Reason why Hindus you meet may not appear to be so afflicted because of the polylithic nature of Hinduism.So the tribals in Bastar would not know nor follow anything of most of the eccentricities from the Jaats of Haryana and vice versa. And then there are various GodMen and sects and what not.Everybody is running there own racket.The only good thing is that there is a decentralization of this asinine stupidity and noone has a copyright over that.So, Indians,when and if get educated and get out of all this stupidity,they tend to reject it more often then not.Not to say that you will not find educated chauvinistic Hindus at all.And not to say that they dont pump the macho ideal of ``My religion good and your religion bad``.
I know a guy in my company who would get all livid when I talk to him about how there has been a book written which lists that beef used to be a diet item during the Vedic period. He would just refuse to listen.But , the percentage of educated people who would argue to protect the so called tradition of Hinduism are relatively low, one reason for that may be that they would either not know which book to read and which book to defend,or are too lazy to try and find out.Hence the laissez faire attitude.

dost-mittar#179: ``Romair:
Your faith in Canada is truly touching. I do hope it is not somewhat misplaced!``

Yes, I hope it is not misplaced either. We will eventually find out, as you said. I have a strange feeling, my faith will not be misplaced. I have been around the world a few times, now, and have lived everywhere, from the deep, ``South`` of fedual Punjab, where women can get abused for appearing in public, to downtown San Fran, which is the center of US liberalism and hedonism, to the heartland of the Republican Midwest. Hopefully, I am no longer the naive twenty-something, who arrived in the USA and thought, he had discovered the ultimate intellectual and social paradise. Having said that, the USA has treated me very well, and I have a lot of regards for the place, and am truly sad to see it going in the direction it currently is. As are many of my American friends.

``You may have noticed that your and Pakistanis` darling MP Carolyne Paarish was kicked out of the Liberal Party this week``

I have always thought Carolyn Parish was an idiot. Had I been the head of the Liberal Party, I would kicked her out a long time ago. I am surprised you consider her my friend. People like her will do more harm to the Pakistani community than good. When I was working on the local Pakistani candidate`s campaign, all the Pakistanis on the campaign thought Parish was an idiot, also, when she called all Americans, ``bastards.`` The Pakistani candidates, in this area, who are now elected, or a being, ``prepared`` to get elected are all quite a bit more sophisticated and balanced. (sidenote: she didn`t kicked out for humiliating Bush, she actually got kicked out when she started badmouthing her own party).

``Yes, Canada is not the US but it will help not to have a pollyana attitude, because then you would be setting yourself up for a rude awakening one day.``

Once again, you could be correct. But I am an optimist. One has to have faith in right winning out over wrong. The only thing I can see taking Canada, ``off`` the track is excessive US pressure, as you have highlighted. It is now truly a test of character of the Canadian society, to see how it deals with it. Being weaker than the USA, obviously it will have to bend, but lets see if it breaks, or not. If two Pakistani Muslims can get elected from the wealthiest (and mostly white) areas of Canada, with a relative landslide, after Sep 11, I have to say, ``so far, so good,`` is my assessment.

As politically incorrect as it may sound, the thing that led the USA, ``off track,`` is the influence of the affluent Jewish lobby. It has gotten the USA - an otherwise peaceful nation -into all kinds of wars, for no reason. Some day, Americans will realize it. The same lobby is not nearly as strong in Canada. It has tried like hell to get Canada into the Iraq war, but with no success. And it is trying like hell to sideline the Muslim point of view in Canada, but has not been successful either, since too many Muslims are already in the mainstream here. And perhaps because the Canadian Sardarjis (who are well into the mainstream) tend to have a soft corner for their Punjabi Muslim Pakistani, ``brethren.`` In the USA, the Jewish lobby has successfully and completely sidelined the Muslim community (which is now running confused and scared). Which is probably why one sees so many Muslim-American Uncle Toms on this site.

{for muslims it was definitely not ``ok``. for non-muslims, it probably was ``ok``}

yet another generalization and assumption.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dost-mittar,

...... exactly .... you are right when you say that hindooism`s ``strength lies in its very weakeness.``....... the same is true for the less virulent strains of christianity and judaism that most people, over the centuries, have adopted ........... the evangelical christians are an accident waiting to happen but luckily the mainstream is still, by and large, not ready to go out and start killing people because they snicker when someone claims that mary was a virgin ...........

........... on the other hand (the right hand, i might add), islam does not allow for such accomodation .......... why?..... because the book itself says so .......why?..... because .......because, what? ....... you see the dilemma?......... even normally good people like bina have bought into the tahmed ``the book has to to be kept at a height of seven feet four inches`` school of thought and it deeply offends them when somone displays some meaningless arabic script on a woman`s back ........... i, for one, have for years kept the koran on my bookself between ibn waraq and russell and, even though i am concerned about divine retribution, nothing terrible has happened yet ......... but it is hard to shake off superstition ..........

........... and as somone pointed out, there may be a lot of hindoos who do not eat beef, but there are quite a few who do ........ maybe i know all the wrong hindoos and i certainly haven`t been to a meeting of the skinny legged guys who run around in khaki shorts carrying big forks, but like i said, they do seem to have a rather laissez faire attitude towards their rather silly religion ........... on the other hand, as far as i can tell, there arn`t any muslims who will pet a cute little piglet at a petting zoo, let alone eat a pork chop .......... this totalitarian quality of islam is what sets it apart from the other not so great religions and which can cause even good folks like temporal to regress ............ and this is what scares the heck out of other people ..........

.......... no, i am not suggesting that muslims should be innoculated against fear, superstition and murderous thoughts by making them eat pork chops .......... all i am suggesting is that little muslim children should read the three little pigs and go to the petting zoo and cuddle a little piglet before they catch the disease ...........

“From what I can understand of your article, your replies are No, No and No. But isnt that pt of view a bit Ostrichish?”

How so? In that not enough questions are being asked, or that the answers are somehow contradictory (they’re not, imho…)?

”Today`s Islam is misogynistic. I think that the movie offended muslims coz verses from the Quran were written on `naked` unclean female bodies. Islamic morality teaches a subtle and extreme form of hatred for the female form. Why?”

Do you honestly think the reaction would be any different if the versus were written on a male arse or penis? Throwing back to 10th century thinkers aside, I think not…

“Van Gogh`s rendition made an incredible statement: it was a powerful image. Women`s sexuality trapped in the verses of the Quran. very very true. half of the full picture or perhaps quarter. but true. “

What Van Goghs intentions were only he knows…you only think it’s a potent statement because you’re predisposed to a particular understanding of the symbolisms depicted.

”On an aside: In my opinion, Muslim society is in decay. Muslim men are even less responsible than the liberated western male—“

Blanket statements like these do nothing for credibility. Anyhow, it depends on what you mean “responsibility” is, and what it entails…one thing I do know is that Muslim families are becoming increasingly impoverished and are finding it more difficult to *provide*…not the same as being irresponsible. Muslim societies, however, are not coping well with individuals who shirk their social responsibilities. The rise of the Jirga system in Pakistan is a good example of this failure...you can’t simply write that off as a man-against-women thing. Misogynistic traditions and readings certainly don’t help…however again, that’s simply another symptom of a justice system that’s NOT looking after the welfare of the people.

I could list off dozens of people I know back in India who would have it ``easier`` if they took off on their families, or divorced their wives because of physical/mental disabilities they have...but they don`t. They stick around because it`s their DUTY. One is tempted to write this off as *individual* acts of kindness, yet when we`re talking about abuse, it`s reflective of society at large...that nonsesne has to stop.

Again, I`d say where we fail is in *dealing* with abuse in our socities, not that our men are inhernetly abusive...there is a HUGE difference between the two. We need to strengthen our society by supporting each other, even if that means punishing those amongst us who are abusing the more vulnerable among us...so in this sense I`d agree that our *civil* society is in serious decay...however, in the absense of working civil institutions I`d dare say that the strength of the Muslim family is the *only* thing we have gonig for us...that`s it. There`s nothing after that...we`re done as a people if that fails.

“inspite of beliefs that make family the moral center of behavior and procreation an ultimate goal, there are no child support laws in the Muslim world.”

Yet there *is* child support…the flaw here is not that Muslim men don’t support their families, however that state institutions relegate such matters to the “personal” business of the individuals involved. The state needs to learn to intervene. I don’t think you need to fault ALL Muslim males (or *potentially ANY* Muslim males…really the same thing…) for instances of social problems (which are always individual and not collective acts…where the society fails is in *dealing* with them).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts