Friday, June 22, 2007

THE PAKISTANI ULEMA NEED TO GROW UP!

Or leastways take some valium.


The Ulema (Muslim religious scholars) normally only get mentioned in news reports when they are aggrieved over some imaginary insult to Islam, or hysterically screaming for the blood of some infidel.
[Such as that time they had fits over cartoons. Mediocre cartoons. ]

Even then, it is probable that only a minority of the Ulema that get mentioned - there are quite possibly thousands of serious, sober Islamic scholars who never get any publicity at all. At least, that is what I choose to imagine. Seeing as sane and rational Islamic scholars never get mentioned in the news, it is hard to know.


And what do the screaming Ulema have their knickers in a twist over this time?


Sir Salman Rushdie.
Author of The Satanic Verses.



Years ago, when Hayatullah Khomeini issued his fatwa, I bought the book. I had scarcely heard of The Satanic Verses then, but some twisted old creep in a bathrobe in a distant country brought it to my attention, and simultaneously made his own belief-system look rather stupid. Islam, in Hayatullah Khomeini's version, seemed a cruel and rather disgusting degeneracy, scarcely more than superstition and tyranny mixed.
At that time, sane and rational Islamic scholars did not get mentioned in the news.

I have since done much more reading on Islam, and while I find little in it to tempt me, or even appeal on an emotional level (and hardly anything at all that appeals on a rational level), it has become clear to me that millions of Muslims haven't a clue about Islam. This is largely because their well-known scholars are irrational authoritarian egomaniacs.
Again, sane and rational Islamic scholars never get mentioned in the news.......


In the past week there have been angry protests in Malaysia, Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir, and several other places, including London. But mostly in Pakistan. As is typical. One rather expects rioting and idiocy in the streets of Pakistan. One no longer expects anything else from Pakistan. It is a miserable place. Whose Islamists and scholars appear to have en-masse taken leave of their senses.
Assuming they had any.... Seeing as sane and rational Islamic scholars never get mentioned in the news, especially in Pakistan, one is inclined to think not.


Several Pakistani parliamentarians have uttered curses and made intemperate statements about Sir Salman Rushdie's knighthood, proving that a brain is not a requisite for Paki parliamentarians.
[Seemingly not for many Pakistani Muslims either.]


Angry Mullahs have demanded the death of Sir Salman Rushdie and a boycott of British goods.
[I do believe I will be buying more British goods now, and avoiding all Pakistani products. Does anybody have a list of Pakistani products to avoid?]


Pakistani Religious Affairs minister Mohammad Ijaz Ul-Haq asserted that the knighthood was an affront to all Muslims, and sputtered indignantly for several minutes.
[Someone should tell the religious affairs minister to stop being an idiot.]


The Pakistani Senate, who have nothing better to do, offered their two paise on the matter, with this statement: "The Senate of Pakistan expresses its strong condemnation on blatant disregard for the sensitivity of the Muslims of the world shown by the British government by awarding a Knighthood to Salman Rushdie, who committed blasphemy against a pillar of Islam, the persona of Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him)".
[Methinks these senators are not worth whatever stipend their constituencies are forced to pay. Or the bribes and extortion with which undoubtedly they augment their income.]


The Jamiat e-Islami Pakistan's leader, Professor Ghafur Ahmad, has darkly threatened unspecified ill upon England. So have leaders of several other Pakistani parties, and even cabinet ministers. Apparently there are not enough problems in Pakistan, with its abominable education and healthcare, high rates of infant mortality, child-slavery, and every other ill with which that most primitive and exploitative of third-world failed states is rife, that these politicians can conceive of anything better to do with their time than utter squawks of outrage. No wonder Pakistan remains at the bottom of nearly every scale measuring human progress.
[Other than death-threats, that is.]


Pakistani Islamists, rather than having temper-tantrums, should employ their energy more constructively. One well can understand their dysfunctional rage, given how much is wrong with Pakistan. But spoiled brat behaviour will not make their country or their lives any better.

On the other hand, developing a sense of humour might. It's worth a try. And there's a book I recommend they read as part of that endeavor.

33 comments:

mevaseretzion said...

Why is it that the more a people needs to fix, the less they tend to fix it, and instead focus on foolery?

Great post, BOTH.

Unknown said...

well I dont know what are you trying to prove here. But i must say whatever mr rushdie has wrote in his book was blasphemy. How can you expect a person to be given knighthood when he has heard the feelings of alot of muslims around the world. But if you have read the book properly in his book not only he has wrote things against the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) but he has openly abused Margaret Thatcher not only that he abused Ram and Sitta both figures who were considered very important in Hindu religion. How can a person of that caliber who causes so much unrest and hurt feeling of so many people would be given knighthood. Every peace loving person would hate Mr Rushdie for coming up with a book like that.You might be right about what you wrote about Pakistan but that cannot hide the fact what evil Mr Rushdie has done. He should have been punished by the british government rather than giving him the knighthood....
Schiller

The back of the hill said...

My dear Mohammad,

You are by now undoubtedly aware that in many advanced societies freedom of speech and freedom of thought are held in high regard. Those whose little feelings were hurt need to grow up, and get over it. Thousands of Muslims slander and insult Christians on a daily basis, and, judging by recent protests in Pakistan, the idea of trying someone for rape or murder if the victim is a Christian is not exactly popular - from this one can see that the sensitivities of religious communities are not sacrosanct, or even given any consideration.
Certainly Christianity and Judaism get short shrift in the Muslim world, and Christians in Pakistan seem to be fair game for every fanatic and psychopath with a chip on his shoulder and the wit to label his crimes a religious duty.

I have read Rushdie's book. I do not find it great literature (it is gibberant, and very long-winded). But it does not offend my religious sensibilities - even if it did, I would still defend his right to say and write what he did. Margaret Thatcher, as a politician, is fair game. Ram and Sita and the entire Hindu religion can go bugger themselves. Religions are like any other ideology: open to debate, insult, sneer, and defamation. Freedom of religion means precisely that; freedom to criticize, despise, counterblast, and speak ill of any creed.
As, for instance, I do as regards Southern Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Greek Orthodox, Wahhabis, and Hindu nationalists. A pox upon them all.

My ancestors, Mohammad, fled Brabant four centuries ago because of religious oppression (yes, I can trace my family tree back to the middle ages - I know the history of my bloodline). The Spanish fought against them and their nation for eighty years, attempting to extinguish them and their beliefs. The massacres perpetrated in the Netherlands by the Catholic armies defy description. Tens of thousands were burned by Alva, hundreds of thousands more were slaughtered by his successors.
We were victorious in that fight. And hence we still exist.
Should we then relinquish the rights so hard won, at so terrible a price, because someone of a different religion insists that feelings were hurt?

Why should Mr. Rushdie be punished? What has he done that merits punishment?

Unknown said...

well out of all the interpretation you have come up with i am still not convinced and i will tell you why. You talked about advanced societies and freedom of speech. Well this word has been used alot in europe and alot of advanced societies and i do agree that it should be there. But freedom of speech doesnot involve hurting sentiments of people of certain communities. You might not have hurt by the words Mr Rushdie has wrote in his book but you cant say the same about everyone living in the world. Let me tell you that in Great Britian where iam living for the last ten years is considered one of the advanced societies of the world. In their constitution any writing that hurts the sentiments and feeling of other people should be banned and stopped and the same implies in norway and denmark what do you have to say on that. Freedom of speech does not involve abusing somebodies religion and causing hatred in the hearts of people. You tell if i write a book in England regarding gay people and abuse them for who they are would you think that i will be appreciated for my so called freedom of speech the answere is no i will probably be arrested for my actions because i have hurt the feelings of people and probably be known as a racist. If i can be arrested for my above mentioned action why cannot Mr Rushdie be punished for his actions. Why so double standards.. Giving him the knighthood will further infuriate people and will cause alot of confusions between the christian,muslims and people of other faiths. And in the end i would like to say that tolerance can only be achieved if actions such as these will be put to sword. Peace be to you.......Schiller

The back of the hill said...

My dear Mohammad, it is precisely BECAUSE of the assertions by certain communities that there must be absolute freedom of speech, irrespective of who objects. The Catholic Church could have used your arguments to prevent all science which disagreed with their teaching, the Spanish could have asserted that Dutch political thought was 'hurtful' to the sentiments of other people in their empire, and the English would have claimed that any American desire to manage their own affairs was 'hurtful'. Fundamentalist Protestants have been demanding for decades that evolution not be taught. And the communist world, in so far as it still exists, still bans all speech that does not originate in the approved organs of the government.

Even the Indian independence movement was hurtful to the British - both Gandhi and Jinna, in their irredentist utterances, were immensely offensive to anyone who served the empire. Whether they were right or wrong would have been immaterial had they been silenced in the manner that some would have Rushdie silenced.
Unless ALL speech is protected, there really is no protection. Just because certain speech adheres to societally accepted norms does not mean that it is accepted as either correct or free.

That Great Britain, Norway, and Denmark have banned some speech proves that they neither understand the concept of freedom of speech, nor are much concerned with the true principles of democracy; they are merely tolerating a show of democratic life for the sake of maintaining peace and order among the majority of their taxbases. And in any case, I would prefer to never live in any of those three countries - I have been there, and find their society mind-numbing, sneering, and cold.

If you write a book regarding gay people, you should be able to publish no matter what it says. If, on the other hand, your writing incites violence, and can be shown to have caused criminal acts against the gay community, then you are held co-responsible for that. It is not that it incites, but that it can be proven to incite and that violence or damage has directly resulted from that incitement, that is the measure.

And as for Rushdie's knighthood - too many people of dubious distinction have already been knighted for that honour to have very much worth. Some of the worst anti-Semites in Britain are members of the house of lords, and British snobbery, racism, and repression have always emanated from their most respected social levels.
Tolerance does not mean approving of other people - you do not really wish my approval, and I have no need for yours either - it means ignoring other people. Especially in so far as they differ from oneself.
It is NOT because we like others that we tolerate them, it is because we accept that they have the right to be as absurd and wrong as they wish. Legally and morally we ignore their 'offensiveness' while it does not result in crimes against persons and property. Only if they become dangerous is that tolerance lifted.

"Peace be to you.......Schiller"

Wa aleikum as-salam.......Traditional

Unknown said...

Hi,
Well i really donot understand again the interpetation that you are coming with. Before i start with anything let me tell you that the book Mr Rushdie wrote does not reflect on any science and it doesnot give any information regarding any religion that we the common people need to know. Its just a method of abusing religious personalities of different faiths without any reasons thats the reason that Mr Rushdie was being openly challenged by Muslim scholars all over the world in Europe and america to come and justify his actions in an open speech but Mr Rushdie never showed the gutts to attend any of these meetings. When you write something in the name of freedom of speech you should have sufficient reasons to justify your argument or writings. Talking about science biggest name in science like Albert Einstein, Newton and Charles Darwin became well known because of the amount of hardwork they put into their research and they had sufficient reasons to prove their researches valid. Thats why people around the world had to believe what they discovered because of the argument they come up with to prove their discoveries and inventions true. What type of argument do you think that Mr Rushdie has when he wrote that book.
You mentioned in your comment that Indian indepence was hurtful to the british first of all let me tell you that that debate has nothing to do with what we are talking about you are mixing religion with politics where as you know that it can never be mixed thats why even in the most advanced society like America religion is everyone personal matter and at the same time no one is allowed to hurt feeling of others. You said that countries like great britian and norway doesnot understand the concept of freedom of speech let me tell you that even in America's constitution you are allowed to abuse someone religion only in the name of freedom of speech. Well we all know that america is the worlds largest democracy and is considered the most advanced societies of all. If that country's constitution prohibit you to write ill about certain faiths how can you prove your argument justified. I Wouldnot be having this argument with you if Mr Rushdie has wrote the reason for his abusing different faiths and a valid one too.
I lived my ten years in England and i know that while living in England i had the full freedom to live my life the way i want to according to my own faith as long as iam not causing harm or inciting violence. I also not fond of the weather of UK but again its the society that matters to me more.
Freedom of Speech only comes handy if it has certain arguments to justify it which in Mr Rushdie Writing is lacking.
peace be to you .........Schiller

The back of the hill said...

1.
the book Mr Rushdie wrote does not reflect on any science and it doesnot give any information regarding any religion that we the common people need to know

That is absolutely correct! It is, as the author admits, a complete work of fiction - and in that regard, it should be seen as in the same category as Laila and Majnun, the hagiographies of the Mughal rulers (and their mythologized ancestries), and nearly everything in all the literatures of the world. Fiction. Fantasy. The imagination made word.

The back of the hill said...

2.
Its just a method of abusing religious personalities of different faiths

That is a faulty analysis. The book poses questions through the means of the imagination of the protagonist - it is metaphor and symbology. It is NOT a critique of religion, but takes religious simplicity and mythology to task.

3.
Mr Rushdie was being openly challenged by Muslim scholars all over the world in Europe and america to come and justify his actions in an open speech but Mr Rushdie never showed the gutts to attend any of these meetings.

Why should he attend? Would you attend a meeting at which you while be crucified and excoriated? Especially when the accusations are not based on the literary quality of what you wrote, but whether it meets the decidedly unliterary demands of someone whose ONLY claim to any expertise is religious?

The back of the hill said...

4.
When you write something in the name of freedom of speech you should have sufficient reasons to justify your argument or writings.

That is NOT why he wrote it. It was a literary endeavor, not a manifesto.

5.
Talking about science biggest name in science like Albert Einstein, Newton and Charles Darwin became well known because of the amount of hardwork they put into their research and they had sufficient reasons to prove their researches valid.

They did not write literarily. They wrote science, and they were challenged on scientific grounds. Literature CANNOT be challenged thus. Would you challenge Shakespeare on the grounds that what he wrote can neither be scientifically proven, and is historically inaccurate? Certainly Midsummer Night's Dream is both unscientific and a-historic......

The back of the hill said...

6.
You mentioned in your comment that Indian indepence was hurtful to the british first of all let me tell you that that debate has nothing to do with what we are talking about you are mixing religion with politics ...

Indeed. In the Islamic world they are however frequently mixed. In the Western world, we attempt to keep them separate. You are conflating literature with both.
And in fact, what I brought up as an example is valid - to the British, any Indian irredentism went against everything that they 'knew' to be true. That they were 'proven wrong' by subsequent history does not erase their conviction that the British Empire was a great good.

The back of the hill said...

7.
even in the most advanced society like America religion is everyone personal matter and at the same time no one is allowed to hurt feeling of others.

Most advanced society? Us? Good heavens, that is quite the compliment. But alas, probably not an accurate assessment.

Now, religion is indeed a personal matter, but the statement that "no one is allowed to hurt feeling of others" only holds for social intercourse. Not for publishing, not for politics, and certainly not for religion. We have several creeds here that have for centuries been at loggerheads with each other - and I openly choose to despise many of them, for both personal and religious reasons.
I am guaranteed that freedom, and I can (and do) speak ill of them, and sneer at their debased theologies and dimwitted adherents.

The back of the hill said...

8.
Well we all know that america is the worlds largest democracy

Then what we know is wrong. India is the world's largest democracy.

9.
If that country's constitution prohibit you to write ill about certain faiths how can you prove your argument justified.

It does NOT prohibit that, it specifically allows it.

The back of the hill said...

10.
I lived my ten years in England and i know that while living in England i had the full freedom to live my life the way i want to according to my own faith as long as iam not causing harm or inciting violence.

The perception of harm by people who are offended by a book is not actual harm. They can choose not to read it, or express their point of view countering whatever the author asserts. They can advise people not to read it, and explain why they think it should not be read. Others can choose for themselves whether to read it - and if anyone is stupid enough to take it as a new gospel, that is their own affair. Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard is perhaps the most ridiculous book ever to have been taken as a new scripture for a new faith, and yet people are allowed to believe every word of it.

The back of the hill said...

11.
I also not fond of the weather of UK but again its the society that matters to me more.

Excellent. As a Californian, I simultaneously envy the British their constant rain while preferring not to live in so wet a place. And while I do not like the English as a mass of people (they invented soccer riots and yobboism), as individuals they can at times be both admirable and splendid company. Nevertheless, imposing the rigid limits on freedom of speech that they have done sticks in my craw, and goes against everything that I believe.

The back of the hill said...

12.
Freedom of Speech only comes handy if it has certain arguments to justify it which in Mr Rushdie Writing is lacking.

Freedom of speech is absolute. Either we can all say what we want, or there is no real freedom of speech.
One is free to slander and libel - but subject to being taken to court of that causes harm (which must be clearly established). When it comes to religious speech, the burden is to prove harm to the deity - how can you possibly assert that the deity is harmed? And further, the deity is not a witness or participant in an earthly court. Ever.
In the same way that church and state must be separated (is the Queen STILL the 'Protector of the Faith'?), earthly justice and divine justice are NOT the same - not equal, not simultaneous. The law is on earth, not in heaven.
If any deity is offended by Salman Rushdie, let them take care of it themself, and in their time. And let us not presume to second-guess the deity on that score.

Mayaben Patil said...

And, of course, some both Christians and Muslims would be offended at any depiction of Jesus smoking a cigarette and drinking a can of beer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8524043.stm
Clickable link: Meghalaya

The only thing that could have improved upon this picture would have been to have the Prophet Mohammed conversing with Jesus while eating a ham sandwich with some Budweiser to wash it down with.


"Just think how this would impact on students at such a tender age."


"Jesus Christ is central to Christian faith and Christian life. The attempt to tarnish his image is highly objectionable and goes against the spirit of religious tolerance in India"

On the other hand, Protestants think that the Catholics should get over it - all paintings of Jesus are idolatry, what makes this image worse than all the crap in Catholic churches?

Unknown said...

1.First of all let me tell you that laila and majnoo are imaginative concept and it involve characters that neither exist in the real world nor that type of literature points towards any personality in real. Its an asian version of romeo and julliet. That of literature can never be categorised alongside "the satanic verse". Romeo and julliet can be read by anyone irrespective of their faith. Can you say the same about "the satanic verse" ?
2. Well its true when you say that the book of Mr Rushdie is an imagination of the protagonist. But one thing i like to mention that it has never put any mythology or simplicity of a religion in to task coz it never has any scientific reasons in it to put it into task. Like you purely fiction.
3. Well my dear friend let me tell you when i say challenge in an open debate i also said in us and europe where he was invited. It never meant that his life was in danger but he just has to prove his literature.
7. Well my friend when you abuse a personality that means alot to people of certain faith they will definitely felt hurt when such type of literature allowed to sell freely in the market. Neither you or i can tell them to get over it. How would you normally behave when someone abuses your wife, sister or anyone that means alot to you. Similarly my friend some people are sensitive about their religious leaders.
Well in your opinion if us, uk, norway or denmark are not the most advanced societies who do you think are the most advance societies somalia, ethiopia or afghanistan.....lolz
8.Well you are right that India is the worlds largest democracy and my apologies for the wrong information but as you might know that when "the satanic verse" come out the prime minister of that time Indira Gandhi banned the book straight after discussing the parliament. Well if the world's largest democracy can ban the book from publishing then why not others as well. One more thing that India after banning the book became the first non muslim country to have stopped it from publishing.
peace be to you.....schiller

The back of the hill said...

How would you normally behave when someone abuses your wife, sister or anyone that means alot to you. Similarly my friend some people are sensitive about their religious leaders.


Again, freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want. Legally, unless they can be proven to have brought harm, there is no recourse.
We tolerate any amount of vituperation directed towards individuals, but also and especially towards notables and religious leaders - and that, largely, is due to the historical abuse of their authority. England will not bow to the Pope, and many of the Christian leaders are lambasted by other sects. Political heads in fact benefit from such abuse, and churchmen are kept humble by it. This is not only normal, but a great good.
Likewise, we consider the Sheikhs in Al-Azar to be just as subject to verbal attack. Not only on their theology or their interpretations, but on the very fundaments of their faith, and as regards their person. Those who do not challenge beliefs are tyrannized by belief. And how much more so all that is held sacred should be, in every generation, challenged. Those who do not argue, end up with sterile minds, and fragile beliefs that easily shatter.

The back of the hill said...

Well in your opinion if us, uk, norway or denmark are not the most advanced societies who do you think are the most advance societies somalia, ethiopia or afghanistan.....lolz

My dear Mohammad, why should I not despise the Scandinavian societies? What have they done that is so very great?
On the other hand, both Canada and Japan have done much with little - and like the Scandinavian countries, I have been there (though I would not wish to live there). There are many qualities to take into account, consequently I do not think that it is particularly useful to try to rank societies so finely. England is better than the continent, yet the English are, justifiably, regarded as violent drunkards and louts. Personally I have a great regard for the Dutch - yet their neuroses and stubbornness are greatly irritating, and on an individual level they are not nearly as open-minded as they are legally required to be.
Personally I prefer California above all other places - but I only grudgingly and sneeringly tolerate the self-righteous ultra-liberals of Berkeley and the suburban belt in the Bay Area.

The back of the hill said...

the prime minister of that time Indira Gandhi banned the book straight after discussing the parliament.
Ah, but at that time, democracy was in a state of suspension. Certainly the Sikhs thought so. And due to inheriting English law, freedom of speech has always been subject to interdiction there, if it could lead to communalist uproar.


One more thing that India after banning the book became the first non muslim country to have stopped it from publishing.
That is comparable to Holland not allowing the publication or sale of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. But if the book cannot be read, how do we know it should not be read? If one bans books, one will not have one's own ideas challenged, nor even allow for discussion and debate. That is not good, and is the mark of dictatorships.
I am convinced that an intelligent person can read anything without it damaging the mind, or undermining that person's intrinsic values.

In the middle ages the rabbis tried to ban many of Maimonides writings (in 1232), specifically because they believed that much of his thought undermined religion - and they were convinced that they were right, and he despite his Talmudic learning and excellence was utterly, completely, and dangerously wrong. The Catholic church, taking note of this, also examined his writings, and subsequently burned several truckloads of his books and other Jewish writings in Paris in 1242.
Then, three centuries later, Martin Luther, who was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and whose death was much sought and striven for by Catholic authorities, recommended that Jewish synagogues, schools, and homes be destroyed, Jewish writings be seized, Jewish teachings be outlawed, and Jews be forced to become farmers or be expelled. And at that time, Catholics and Protestants were already enthusiastically burning each others books, and killing each others adherents - all with the best of religious motives, each convinced that they and they alone were right.
Such excess is precisely what banning books leads to.

And surely you would prefer that you be allowed to decide for yourself what you will read, and what you will believe, than have someone impose that on you, while not permitting you to challenge their right to do so, or even question their motives or their expertise?

The back of the hill said...

Maimonides, by the way, is known to Muslims as Musa Bin Maimun Ibn Abdullah el Kurtubi ( موسى بن ميمون بن عبد الله القرطبي ), aka Moses the son of Maimon son of Abdullah (Ovadia) the Carthagenian. To the Jews, who know acknowledge his greatness, he is Rav Moishe Ben Maimon. To the Catholic Church, which for centuries banned his books, he is Maimonides. He was born in Andalus in 1135, and because of Christian persecution he fled to North Africa, finally settling in a district of Cairo, where after being the physician to the Caliph for many years he passed away in 1204.
He was a scholar (a rabbi, in fact), a philosopher, and a medical man.

The back of the hill said...

To the Jews, who know acknowledge his greatness,

That should read: 'To the Jews, who NOW acknowledge his greatness.

If you wish to read about him, he is also much known acronymically as RAMBAM (short for: Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon).

The back of the hill said...

Not, of course, to be confused with RAMBAN - Rabbi Moishe Ben Nachman, Nachmanides.

Rabbi Moishe Ben Nachman (1194 – 1270), a marvelous Torah commentator from Spain, who got into trouble when he bested a convert (Pablo Cristiani) in a religious debate sponsored by the Dominicans. The Dominicans, furious at the turn that events had taken, ensured that Spain was too hot for him. He left the land of his birth in 1267 for the land of his ancestors, dying in the holy land three years later. He is buried in Haifa.

The back of the hill said...

CORRECTION:
... aka Moses the son of Maimon son of Abdullah (Ovadia) the Carthagenian.

I apologize for the incorrect translation. Al Kurtubi does not mean 'the Carthagenian', but in fact means 'the Cordovan', in reference to the city of his birth: Cordoba (قرطبة), in Spain.


Moshe ben Maimon (משה בן מימון‎), in Arabic: Abu Imran Musa ibn Maimon ibn Ubaidallah al Kurtubi al Israiliyi ( أبو عمران موسى بن ميمون بن عبد الله القرطبي الإسرائيلي ).
Born in 1137 or 1138, died 1204.

Unknown said...

Well my friend that is just your way of opinion. People who do have a self pride can never listen to such abuses about their loved ones and they definitely can never be told to get over it only in the name of freedom of speech.
About the other point relating to the most advanced society every country has some negatives about them. The thing is when you sum them up the positive should be more then the negatives. Just take the case of uk i've lived here for a while now. Neither i've been treated indifferently from the english. I never thought that i've been deprived of any right that i might have if i was born there. UK alot europeon countries might have been racist or biased in the past. But they have come out of these shortcomings. By the way my friend an advance society doesnot mean speaking ill about somebody but living in an environment where religious tolerance is the top most priority.
Well sikhs would have never admire the steps taken by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi because she spoiled the sikhs efforts for the independent Khalistan by killing alot of sikh freedom fighter in the golden temple. All she did was to stop a possible country divide within india. But her stance regarding Mr Rushdie's was hailed by the alot of people in her country and my friend if Indira was inspired by the so called inheriting English law she would have allowed the publication of "the satanic verse" because that book is published openly in the uk.
My dear friend like i mentioned in my previous comment that the "the satanic verse" cannot be compared with books like laila and majnoo or mein kempf by adolf hitler.
Mein kempf is a book regarding political and leadership controversies. But here we are talking about a more sensitive issue regarding religion and its an imaginative book where a protagonist abuses religious personalities. These type of two literature unfortunately cannot be categorised equally.
Let me tell you my friend you might heard a book called " the history of arabs" by phillip khurri Hitti which causes similar uproar but it was not being banned by any muslim country reason being because it was well researched every information given it has the full reference and it took Mr Phillip ten years to complete the book. These days the book is still used in egypt turkey or even in pakistan as a reference book for the history students.
peace be to you.....schiller

The back of the hill said...

Well my friend that is just your way of opinion. People who do have a self pride can never listen to such abuses about their loved ones and they definitely can never be told to get over it only in the name of freedom of speech.

Yet if the offended individuals act violently, they are held legally responsible. Here in the US, physically attacking someone over verbal offense is considered assault, and punished accordingly. And I believe the Old World also has laws against that.
The police do not look kindly on people who let a verbal altercation degenerate into a donnybrook.

The back of the hill said...

By the way my friend an advance society doesnot mean speaking ill about somebody but living in an environment where religious tolerance is the top most priority.
Which means being able to ignore religious differences, including a personal belief that someone else's religion is an absurd heathendom. But it does not mean being forced to shut up. I can say whatever I wish about Mormons, for instance - and the members of that ridiculous faith are entirely free to either ignore what I said, or attempt to countervoice it. But I cannot be silenced.


Of course, if I choose to shout something blasphemous in a Mormon temple, the police will quite rightly consider that I bear great responsibility for the resulting broken jaw and black eye - and very likely will not pursue the matter further. One should choose one's venue for offense with a bit of wisdom and common sense.

The back of the hill said...

because she spoiled the sikhs efforts for the independent Khalistan by killing alot of sikh freedom fighter in the golden temple.
And killing a lot of innocent people - what the Indian forces did in the Panjab in subsequent years was brutal, and qualifies as a crime against humanity.

so called inheriting English law she would have allowed the publication of "the satanic verse" because that book is published openly in the uk.
British laws in India were not the same as British laws in the UK. Mughal codes were modified and expanded upon to make them more like British law - with, of course, a streak of imperialist practicality, especially as regards controlling the civilian population and preventing discord. It was not geared towards democracy, but towards an efficiency of rule.

The back of the hill said...

"People who do have a self pride can never listen to such abuses about their loved ones... "
Legally, they jolly well cannot become violent in response.

The back of the hill said...

"But her stance regarding Mr Rushdie's was hailed by the alot of people in her country"
And criticized by any number of people world-wide.
As, indeed, much of her rule could be criticized.

"By killing alot of sikh freedom fighter in the golden temple"
Which could have, and should have, been avoided. She herself created the crisis. Much like the Hindu-nationalists are also a product of her era. Divide and conquer.

The back of the hill said...

"but it was not being banned by any muslim country reason being because it was well researched every information given it has the full reference and it took Mr Phillip ten years to complete the book."
The Muslim countries are, perhaps, not a good example..... The book 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is still published there, freely sold there, and along with Hitler's Mein Kampf, it is still a bestseller there. As you know, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written by the Czar's secret police in order to fan the flames of ethnic and communal tension in Russia, and was based entirely on a work of satirical fiction. It has been debunked numerous times - yet, incredibly, it is still an all-time favourite in the Middle East.
Further, the television series 'Horse Without a Rider', also a work of fiction with no sound basis in fact, and also remarkably communalist in intent, was staggeringly popular all over the Middle East a few years ago.

The back of the hill said...

"But here we are talking about a more sensitive issue regarding religion and its an imaginative book where a protagonist abuses religious personalities."
There is much, in both literature as well as religious writing, which does no less. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have standardly written critically and negatively about each other. A tolerant society is capable of relativizing such writings, and people who disagree with such writings are free to come up with counter-arguments, and promote alternative points of view. The answer in other words is not limiting what can be said, but expanding it.
You yourself dislike that book, and have a negative opinion of its author. And you have counter-arguments against his writing, and criticism of his approach. Your opinions are a part of the discussion, as indeed they should be. But consider what would happen if there were no discussion - if no discussion were possible, and no debate was allowed. What kind of society would England be if that were the case?

Unknown said...

Well my dear friend why do we have to utter such abusive words that cause such violences. Don't you think that the world is a much better place to live when such type of abusive literature against any faith be silenced. Why can't we simply nip the problem in the bud. Please note here when i say abusive literature that doesnot involve a logistic debate or an interpretation.
* Well my dear friend religious differences are always ignored because we simply cannot change that but what Mr Rushdie wrote was not a personal belief because belief consists of reasons and criticism without a reason is simply fanatism. You are allowed to criticise any religion you want but you should have sufficient reason to hate it.
* I never said that all the steps taken by Indira Gandhi were justified but all she did was to stop the rebellions from claiming an independent state. Who she ordered to kill were rebels in her opinion. In other words she saved india from a possible country divide. Do you think that if Khalistan would have been made independent india would have been the 7th most strong economy of the world.... wake up and smell the coffee.
* Well trust me friend stand and abuse a few people on the street and called their loved ones by name. You will definitely find out what i'm talking about.
* Well her stance regarding banning Mr rushdie's book was definitely hailed by most of the people inside and outside the country.
* Well my friend the book of Mr Rushdie is officially banned in all the muslim countries and the reason is that its a criticism with out a reason. On the other hand the book "history of Arabs" is a criticism with reasons and a alot of research seems to me a perfect example.
* About the last point you made my friend let me tell you that again that an argument or a criticism should be based on facts. Even from the start of comments i was never critical about writing ill but i also emphasize that one should be reasonable when writing ill. That makes up an advance society does not matter a muslim christian or a hindu or even jew writes it .
peace be to you......schiller

Search This Blog

MENTAL THUMBS

Several years ago I had a coworker down the peninsula who would leave work related voicemails on people's answering machines all weekend...