http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pakistan-Punjab-governor-Salman-Tasser-killed-by-his-guard/articleshow/7216684.cms
I fear for Pakistan's future. I fear for the people in that country who can't leave if things go bad, who don't support the path to theocracy.
The article talks about how a Pakistani government official was assassinated for opposing the continuation of blasphemy laws in the country.
Now, upon researching the subject, I found that India too has blasphemy laws, albeit with a 'malicious intent' clause (which is sometimes misused according to one's interpretation of their religion).
India's blasphemy laws apply to all religions. While this is still hopelessly, backwardly deferent to religious sensibilities (as opposed to any other sensibility), at the very least, it is equal-opportunity deference. Pakistan's blasphemy laws apply only to Islam. Defilement of the Quran, for example, carries a sentence of life imprisonment. Defamation of Muhammed carries a death sentence. These are the harshest penalties imposed for blasphemy anywhere in the world, bar maybe Afghanistan.
The problem with such laws is that they;
a) Restrict freedom of expression. Criticisms of everything should be allowed in any healthy society. Why should one facet of life (religion) take precedence over all others? Why should people be so offended if somebody wishes to criticise their religion? We don't prohibit people legally from insulting our mothers, even though we love our mothers very much, do we? We don't prohibit people legally from insulting our offspring, or blood-relatives of any kind, or spouses.
Why does religion get a pass for this kind of criticism?
b) Are often used to silence and oppress minorities. Some people just don't believe in your god. It's not a crime. Why should they respect something they do not believe in, just as much as a believer does?
I am a firm believer in evolution. Do I insist that everybody must refrain from criticising or 'defaming' evolution? On the contrary, I'm interested to hear criticisms of evolution, interested in alternate theories if they hold merit.
The punishment should fit the crime, and offence has never been a good reason for legislation.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteI'm so traumatized over how people get insanely violent over religion.
I am a Muslim. I believe in the Prophet. When somebody makes an insulting comment, I don't lose my head. It does upset me. But not enough for me to fucking kill somebody.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I think people should be careful not to hurt other people's feelings. I would never insult Hinduism or Christianity because that's not what cultured people do. I respect every religion. People follow what makes sense to them. It's their choice. I am no one to point fingers and call names. We're all human beings and we should just fucking learn to accept each others' choices.
I hate how everyone is going to associate intolerance with Islam now. Just because of a few people. Not every Muslim thinks like that yknow?
I don't understand why he killed salman taseer. Why did he HAVE to? If you don't like what a politician says, don't vote for him or his party. Why did he have to bring out the guns and spill blood? I've talked to people who say not very honourable things about Islam and I defend my religion with words, polite, meaningful, logical words. Not guns. People who talk hate are frustrated themselves. They shouldn't be takem seriously.
Oh and I don't think people should be allowed to criticize EVERYTHING.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like people are going to become less emotional about their religious beliefs if they're allowed to criticize everything. They are still going to be just as attached.
If those laws are lifted, especially in a country like India in which people of so many faiths live together, people are going to bring in religion in petty squabbles. They're openly going to insult each other's Prophets, gods or whatever. And that would lead to massive blood shed. Atleast now there is fear of authority, fear of punishment. There is something holding them back from saying vile things about each others' beliefs. You also have to realize that the literacy rate in India or Pakistan is not really that high. If the laws are lifted, you can't expect people to have enough sense not to provoke, hurt or anger each other by insulting each others' religions.
Can't you imagine what would happen? Even if there's a small disagreement, people are going to insult religion. Neighbours, co-workers, associates would fight. It'd be disastrous.
I recently saw a video of an elderly woman being lashed for wearing pants in public. The people giving the punishment laughed, while the woman pleaded them to stop, she was clearly suffering a lot of pain. Is this the conduct of highly evolved spiritual people carrying out the work of god? Or something you would expect to see thousands of years ago, by brutish and unintelligent early man? You decide. You will know the health of a tree, by the fruits it bears.
ReplyDeleteI think people should definitely be allowed to criticise everything.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that shouldn't be allowed, is hate-speech. IE; "Black people should be killed", "Muslims should be beheaded", etc. Stuff that incites violence.
Otherwise, who is to say who's sensibilities should be put into law, and whose shouldn't?
What if I get overly offended and throw punches at people who insult my cat, for example? Should this be put into law? What if the majority of the country had strong feelings towards their pets, and resorted to violence every time someone insulted them? Should that be put into law?
No, of course not. People need to learn to contain their offence. Freedom of speech should be maintained, and the only person who need fear punishment is those who escalate situations into violence (in this case, as a response to 'blasphemy').
One example; If somebody tells a Muslim that they think Muhammad was a pedophile. Now, this is obviously very insulting to someone who subscribes to the faith, but it is also a statement of fact. Now, if people cannot discuss things like religion openly, without someone claiming offence, how is society going to move forward? Why shouldn't religion be discussed?
There's no line to be drawn between "Mohammad's a dick!" and "Mohammad was a pedophile", really.
I think if these stupid blasphemy laws were removed, people would get the hell over it, and stop thinking that their little sensitivities deserve special treatment.
'Statement of fact'?
ReplyDeleteHow is it a statement of fact? It's quite a nasty thing to say, without any proof whatsoever. And it was hurtful. Honestly, I don't understand why people have to say such things at all. Why insult Prophets? I'm sure everyone feels the need to make their opinions heard but that's where compassion should come into play. Is it worth shouting out your opinion if it's hurting somebody? If it's really honestly painful for them to hear such things being said about somebody they have an enormous amount of respect for?
I don't know why that is so hard for people to understand. The blasphemous words hurt more than anything. Why? Not because what people say about Mohammad is the truth (far from it actually) but it's sad to see people have such little regard for your feelings and beliefs. Religion is personal. Why can't people get that? I'm not very religious. I like to keep an open mind about everything. But it hurt when you said that about Mohammad. There are a lot of things I may not like about religious leaders but I know that if I say anything deliberately negative then that would hurt people. And it's really not worth it.
Everyone needs to just respect one another. You may not like the religion, not like the Prophet, not like the teachings but please just learn to accept other people's beliefs and respect them. Just understand the fact that everyone is attached to his or her religion and nobody wants to hear negative things about it. If they people understand this, there would be no need for blasphemy laws.
My apologies, my intent was not to offend. I simply thought it was agreed upon that Muhammed married Aisha at the age of six, and consummated the marriage at the age of nine? This information is what I've received from Muslims themselves, so.. I didn't think there'd be an argument about it.
ReplyDeleteEither way, consider this; I hate Hitler, right. He did awful things, to a great many people. The way to discourage such awful things, is to socially condemn them.
Now, if someone thinks Mohammed has done awful things worthy of social condemnation, should they really be barred from voicing these opinions, just because others respect him?
Would you want there to be laws against saying mean things about Hitler, just because a group of people respect him?
Note; I am not comparing Mohammed to Hitler, I am comparing the logic of the two circumstances.
And you know, lots of things are painful for me to hear. I wouldn't like somebody to tell me that my mother is a whore, for example. Or insult my parents in any way. But I wouldn't lobby for a law against this, and neither should anyone else.
So, why does religious belief deserve such deference, when such deference is not awarded in any other facet of life?
Islamic Law allows girls to get married when they reach puberty. So it may seem strange to hear about a 9 year old getting married NOW, because we have our own laws which don't allow marriage before the age of 18, but back then it was acceptable because Islamic Law allows it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I understand what you mean. I'm not 100% okay with the Prophet's marriage to a 9 year old either. But I guess that's because right now such an occurence is looked down upon and is not at all appreciated. And it's not like Islam encourages it, it just allows girls who've reached puberty to get married.
But calling him a pedophile is harsh. He married the girl and the marriage was consummated when the girl reached puberty. It is perfectly legal in Islam.
Is it a bit weird though? Yes, we're not used to the idea so it seems a bit off.
But you have to realise that the reason for the marriage was not to have sex with a child. Prophet was NOT a pedophile. His first marriage was with a woman older than him. He married Hazrat Khadija when she was 40 years old and he was 25. Most of the Prophet's wives were widows and they were NOT little girls. So why are people calling him a pedophile when they don't even understand the reasons for the marriage?
Prophet married Hazrat Aisha to reinforce his friendship with Hazrat Abu Bakr, Aisha's father. He married her because she was bright and intelligent and the Prophet knew that she would be able to apply her capabilities to Islam. And she did. Hazrat Aisha is known as one of the most wisest women in Islam. Her services to the faith are extremely valuable. She narrated SO MANY Hadith. I don't know the exact number, but it is over 2000. In the end, when Islam needed further solidifying after Prophet's death and there was a need for compilation of the Quran and the Hadith, Hazrat Aisha was A LOT of help. In the end, Hazrat Aisha proved to be an asset to Islam.
If unjust things had happened to Hazrat Aisha, wouldn't she have married someone else when the Prophet passed away? She stayed a widow for 50 years. What does that tell you?
If unjust things had happed to Hazrat Aisha wouldn't she have been a bit shy, a bit disturbed? How could she teach Islam so well? How was her memory literally flawless? How could she narrate the Prophet's words so well? How could she seem happy?
And as for why religion deserves such laws, it's because a vast majority of people want those laws. You talked about how you wouldn't want anyone calling your mother a whore etc so there should be a law. Prophets to religious people are not like mothers. Their respect and love for the Prophets transcends their love and respect for their mothers. That doesn't mean they don't love their mothers or won't defend their honour when it is being questioned. It just means that they are a lot more sensitive about their faith. When such strong emotions come into play, it's better to have laws that don't allow blasphemy than to allow those emotions to result in widespread killings. It doesn't HAVE to be like that. Personally I think people should be mature enough not to kill each other over such things. But until they don't become mature enough, the laws need to be there.
The laws aren't what need to change, it's the maturity level and the level of patience in the general population. If someone makes a blasphemous remark, why can't one just use words to clarify? I tried to do it here with you. I tried my best. Perhaps if I had been more knowledgeable about Islam my answer could've been better. Nevertheless, I tried it the peaceful way and it felt humane and sensible. Whether or not my argument made sense to you is not relevant. If God asks me about this incident, I'll just say that I did defend my belief in the most humane way I possibly could. I was not violent, I was not vile and I was not rude. And I believe that worked better than raising a gun.
Okay, we obviously have differing beliefs about this. *I*, for example, don't think it's acceptable at all for people to sex girls just because they've started menstruating. Do you know what pregnancy is like for an underdeveloped body? 9 years old is definitely underdeveloped. Even fully mature women suffer MANY birth complications. Whether or not Aisha turned out to be good for Islam, whether or not Aisha expressed dissatisfaction with her life, is irrelevant to my moral judgement of Muhammad. I would think that any divinely inspired person/text would forbid the willful endangerment of young girls like this, or at least avow the use of protection. BTW: Whether or not she had menstruated when he had sex with her is debateable, but I'll move on, because none of this is really the point.
ReplyDeleteNow, my point was precisely this; People should not be legally barred from saying things like what I have just said.
I should be allowed to express my distaste and disgust for the encouragement (or allowance of, whatever you prefer) of sex with young girls, regardless of whether people respect the person who did it, or not.
Just like you should be allowed to express your distaste or even hatred for Darwin (if you had any), despite the fact that I respect the theory of evolution.
Also, I don't think people need laws to placate them just because they cannot control their emotions. I mean, seriously. People have strong emotions about lots of things, and not all of those things are banned. You can't arbitrarily say that one group's emotions are stronger than another's. How can you say, for example, that one's love for Islam transcends, say, my love for my parents? I would heartily disagree with that.
ReplyDeletePeople need to learn self-control. This isn't going to happen by treating them like children and telling the rest of us we aren't allowed to offend them.