I haven't used enough foul language that this lady deserves. Blasphemy is in the books of religions like Christianity and Judaism, not in the U. S. constitution. It was in the U. K. Law. but recently has been abrogated. I hope that everybody understands the difference between religious sanction and law of the land.
This stupid haggard of an old lady should rather look at her own level of ignorance than look at others.
Kamal Das would do better if he refrained from commentig on subjects like the 5th century BC Athens about which others have far more information than he does.
The foolish lady should read Socrates again. He, in spite of not being wiser than Democritus, has more literature available on the net and bookstores. Read what blasphemy meant in those days. You might need a thousand years to be as informative as I am in philosophy. And check spelling before posting any invective polemic.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:
There should have been an acknowledgement from Kamal Das that he was wrong in assuming that blasphemy laws are not on the books in the USA. Instead he shifts the focus sheepishly and gets back to his favored offensive manner -- calling other people stupid! The following lines have been culled from another source, which is why I put it in separately, even using color to indicate outside source. Note that I initialled my name where I inserted my own comments. Kamal Das is unaware of the fact that the more he calls other people 'stupid' the more he exposes his own abyssmal ignorance. Kamal Das would do better if he refrained from commentig on subjects like the 5th century BC Athens about which others have far more information than he does.
Here are the lines on blasphemy, again:
<< Blasphemy has been a crime in many religions and cultures, wherever there is something sacred to protect. Socrates was prosecuted for blasphemy, and Mosaic law prescribed death for cursing the name of God. Jesus was tried for blasphemy, while Christians regarded the action of the Jews in trying him as itself blasphemous.
Secular modern states often retain blasphemy laws, but they are infrequently enforced. In the United States, state blasphemy laws remain on the books, but the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it likely that any blasphemy prosecution would now be regarded as an impermissible establishment of religion.
In countries governed under Islamic law, the concept of blasphemy is broad, embracing many kinds of disrespect or denial of religion; the condemnation (1988) of the author Salman Rushdie by Iranian clerics is a recent example of theocratic action. >>
[Needless to say, the Rushdie Fatwa by the Iranian Ayatollah was thick with politics. -FM]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:42:03 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
This 'wise goatess' is simply unable to go into the depth of anything. she finds Socrates charged on blasphemy, yet doesn't care to know that in his days attributing natural causes to thunder and lightening was considered blasphemy. What is little knowledge, stupid lady? Are you a savant? Get you brain treated for dementia. That might get you back to understanding reason.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:Another show of aggression from this 'alpo bidya bhoyonkori' -- my oh my! what a lot of instructions! "Do a little research" he orders haughtily! But the answer is: I have done so. Let me repeat what I posted earlier:
In the United States, state blasphemy laws remain on the books, but the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it likely that any blasphemy prosecution would now be regarded as an impermissible establishment of religion.
A little understanding of how the law functions in the USA would have helped. But that would cross the limit of the capacity of 'alpo bidya' practitioner.
We are not speaking the same language, obviously. He does not understand the word 'communalist' as the rest of the millions of subcontinentals do. Otherwise, how can anything, (and I mean ANY thing whatsoever) I said in the debate with an irrational raver like Ali Sina who is driven mad by his personal spiritual trauma be construed as being "a devout communalist"? LOL!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:28:55 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
Do a little search, Ms. Majid. Blasphemy law was declared unconstitutional in the U. S. A. about hundred years ago and in the U. K. it has been repealed recently. It was I to point out first that Islam doesn't have anything to support it in scripture. But practical Islam is a different thing. Before calling me a communalist, look at yourself in the mirror. Didn't you go on debate with Mr. Ali Sina to prove that the 'Holy Quran' is a revealed material, an uncreated word of God. With such ardent faith, what could you be other than a devout communalist. Look at your own brain chamber and see how much of it is really empty.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:Where do Communalists keep their brain? Not up there, for sure, but down, somewhere in the region of their knees. That's why response to any issue resembles a proverbial knee-jerk.
Islam is a 'weak' faith according to Kamal Das, therefore it has blasphemy laws. But the West has stronger religions, so, by his blind faith in the West he assumes, there is no Blasphemy law in the West. Not true.
Blasphemy in the Biblical language (both in the Christian and Jewish Bible) is not quite the same as the Qur'anic Arabic of 'kufr'.
The concept of kufr is complex, and the sin of committing kufr also entails hiding the truth for malevolent purposes, which our Jamaati brothers are constantly engaged in. In addition to being kafirs, they are munafiqs or hypocrites, a sin of greater degree of breach of moral duty in the Qur'an.
Blasphemy laws exists in the books in the USA, and in the UK the old archaic laws have been retained despite many public demands to repeal them. Their enforcement has become extremely rare now. But that was not the case in earlier centuries.
In Pakistan the law was included in the post- Ziaul Huq days, and was revived in 1986. The Pakistani judiciary should be praised for not enforcing it frequently. But things have changed politically recently. A liberal-minded Governor of Punjab was assassinated last year by his body-guard for protecting a "blasphemer", and the murderer was hailed with rose petals by the crowd. This murderer is still not convicted by the Court.
The fact is, there is no Blasphemy law in Bangladesh. Although S A Hannan & Co. and their marauding jamaati goondas would like to see one in the books.
Blasphemy has been a crime in many religions and cultures, wherever there is something sacred to protect. Socrates was prosecuted for blasphemy, and Mosaic law prescribed death for cursing the name of God. Jesus was tried for blasphemy, while Christians regarded the action of the Jews in trying him as itself blasphemous.
Secular modern states often retain blasphemy laws, but they are infrequently enforced. In the United States, state blasphemy laws remain on the books, but the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it likely that any blasphemy prosecution would now be regarded as an impermissible establishment of religion.
In countries governed under Islamic law, the concept of blasphemy is broad, embracing many kinds of disrespect or denial of religion; the condemnation (1988) of the author Salman Rushdie by Iranian clerics is a recent example of theocratic action.
[Needless to say, the Rushdie Fatwa by the Iranian Ayatollah was thick with politics. -FM]
Farida Majid
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: kamalctgu@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:09:08 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
"Why followers of Islamic faith are so paranoid about criticism of their religious figurehead? Can someone explain this phenomenon in the believers of Islam?"
Because their fragile house would fall apart. That's why. U.SA. declared it unconstitutional. Even GB has done away with it. Now the 'highly educated' people like Hannan wants it.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are so many religions on earth, and most people believe in some sort of religion. As far as I know – Hinduism does not have any blasphemy law, but Islam, Christianity, and Judaism do have provision for blasphemy law. The tolerance levels of blasphemous acts in all those three religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) vary widely. The most tolerant among those three are believers of Christianity, and least tolerant ones are the believers of Islam. They cannot even tolerate a mild criticism of their religion or their religious figureheads. They are ready to bring hell on earth for criticism of prophet. Believers in other two religions (Christianity and Judaism) do not have such touchy feelings about their religious figures. Why followers of Islamic faith are so paranoid about criticism of their religious figurehead? Can someone explain this phenomenon in the believers of Islam?
Jiten Roy
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
Date: Sunday, April 8, 2012, 9:14 AM
Just want to add my two cents on this topic.
The main reason of our people becoming violent over petty issues is WE do not feel we have a country that respects law of the land. I see students closing national highways or calling for strike to get basic services from our governments. Here I am not criticizing our current government only rather talking about how our leading political parties (And government institution/bureaucracy) works. Until laborers in garment industries breaks few buses or obstructs major highways, they do not even get salaries regularly in many cases.
Therefore, it is easy for some of us to point finger at some people who are violent but without knowing WHY they are acting this way will not cease violence in our country. Last forty years many leaders had chances to establish rule of law in various institutions but they chose to tear down dignity of those institutions or fill them up with political workers instead (Most of the time dumb asses who only know to say yes sir or yes madam). So from judicial department, utilities departments, public universities, government owned factories etc are filled with people (Most but not all) who are incapable to do their duties. Gradually people do not even expect these institutions to protect them or be at their services. Rather they are afraid of police, WASA, Dhaka university etc and people who work in them.
Violence against alleged "Blasphemy" should not be blamed on those misguided people only. Rather all establishments who failed to do their BASIC duties. Sadly this is not the first time we witness this. (I am afraid) until we make fundamental changes this will not be the last incident either. Blaming so called "Fundamentalists" is easy and convenient (Guess Jamat-e-Islami is under radar for various ego-political reasons) but they are NOT the ONLY cause behind it. I have seen many political leaders of so called "Secular" parties abusing Hindus and Islam when it is convenient.
Now comes to "Idea" of freedom of speech. I strongly support the concept of free speech BUT I am afraid most of my countrymen do NOT understand it. For example, if I pick on a specific member of this forum and say this person stole money from me, he/she will have some options about responding to it. One possible option is to provide information and proof showing it is just a slander but not true. Another option is to expose me as a compulsive lair. Another possible option is to suit me in court of law for slander and libel.
Freedom of speech means sharing "AUTHENTIC" information or criticizing any person/institution based on FACTS. Lies, slander, libel is NOT part of the concept of "Free speech".
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) left this world more than 1400 years ago. He is not there to defend his good name against lies, slander or libel. Therefore many Muslims feels strongly (Myself included) we have to do something to get those facts straight. However different people reacts differently to some of these "Hate campaigns". I prefer to provide authentic information to replace lies and hate campaigns, others protest it peacefully. Some of them do not have confidence that symbolic protests will stop these abuses, so they resort to violence. Islam is similar to other religions but also unique in some ways. Our love for our prophet is deeper than most ties we have in this material world, so this "Unique" bond leads SOME of us to protect the good name like we would protect the good names of our mothers or motherland.
I know non-Muslims or non-practicing Muslims do not understand this as it is an unique "Living relationship" and "Living LOVE" we have for the man who was described as "Mercy to the worlds". Those who studied his life dispassionately knows true nature of prophet of mercy (May peace and blessings be unto him). I think it is obscene to attack person (With falsehood) who died 1400 years ago.
Therefore, it is not "Practical" to expect we are not going to react to slanders and libels against our noble prophet (PBUH). Thankfully most people do tolerate abuses against a great man like prophet Muhammad (PBUH) but in this large community there are people who are less effective to control their emotions. So we see violence.
A true tolerant community needs a strong court system and law enforcement institutions (That is easily accessible) to protect "Tolerant nature" of that community. Just like countries need to have srong army to protect peace. So NOT only Hindus pay the price, many more powerless Muslims, Chrsitians, tribal people ALSO face oppression in this "Golden Bengal" of ours.
I am encouraged by criticism of Islam or prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by non-Muslim Zionist scholars like Bernard Lewis who probably knows more about Islam than 99% of Muslim population. I have followed some of his works and he is well known for criticizing Muslims. But I have not seen him spreading blunt lies against Islam or Muhammad (PBUH). I do not agree with some of his "Interpretations" but that is "Free speech". So I do not have to agree with him (Albeit I respect his scholarship) in everything.
At the same time, I do not respect well known hate mongers against Islam and Muslims. That is not intolerance but supporting truth and justice.
That is why I wrote in my last post that, until we become united to invest in our institutions (last two decades political parties were reluctant to make any fundamental changes to our colonial style institutions) people of all religion will suffer. I bet you anything, you will find MANY incidents of Muslims facing similar oppressions in this country for being in the wrong place in the wrong time every year.
It is WRONG to teach people that freedom of speech means you can spread lies about great people. Just a reminder, many countries all over the world (Including ours) made it illegal to criticize founding fathers of those countries. Why do you think it is OK to spread hateful lies against one of the greatest men who ever lived?
I am not making the last claim out of my faith only. I have studied his life (Yes critically as well) enough to know he was truly a messenger of mercy. I have been studying works of well known atheist Aroz Ali Matubbar for a while and amazingly his complaints were not against Islam in most parts but he detested how we practice Islam. I think I said similar things in this forum plenty of times. Aroz Ali even distributed his property according to Islamic philosophy!!
Sadly people without proper education in theology makes absurd comments about religious figures and even lesser educated people lead the wave of protest (Sometimes violent protest) against it. If we successfully build strong institutions, we'll see a more tolerant and liberal country in Bangladesh.
Lastly my humble request if you wish to "Respond" to this post, please read it one more time first......
Shalom!!-----Original Message-----
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 7:13 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
My sincere question to Mr. Hannan: who creates the turmoil? Who instigates them?I was a student of DU when Daud Haider wrote a so called blasphemous poem that was published in the daily Sanbad. The Sanbad office was burnt down. Daud Haider was allowed a safe passage out of the country. His village home was burnt down though. There was a big demonstration. We were on the sidelines. I got an opportunity to read the poem thanks to one of senior Muslim students. He was a religious person. But he enjoyed the poem and reading it again and again. The poet has not spared any prophet. Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus were included. My friend was saying to us,"Why did the mollas do that? Simply by writing a poem a poet cannot do any harm to a religion. But the way the way mollas reacted put shame on us. "10-15 years I met Daud Haider in one of my Muslim friends' house. I asked him,"Do you repent for having written that poem?" with a firm voice he answered,"No." Age has not changed his conviction. I don't know if my senior friend Siraj bhai has changed. But I still believe what he said: the mollas overreacted for nothing.Now I understand that it was all politics against secularism and general students and common people were only tools and tool men were the instigators.
Sent from my iPhoneWhat Mr. Hannan feels is simply that these 'religious people' are to vulnerable to criticism though they are free to criticize those who don't subscribe to their religions. These 'religious personalities' have long enjoyed special privileges. It is against human right to protect a certain group of people who nurture and propagate wrong concepts about the Universe and live like parasites in the name of religion.
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 5:14 PM, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Jiten and others,My best regards. Human logic differs. I sincerely feel that attack on religious personalities ( particularly on Prophets or founders of all religion) create turmoil and this should be handled by a law stipulating deterrent punishment's far as I know there is blasphemy law in some form in some western countries. Even our penal code does not allow insulting religion or their Prophets or founders. Only thing is punishment is low and it is not applied. I only propose that punishment should be stern and in such cases government should file case as they do in case of murder.Shah Abdul Hannan
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 8:24 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
Jiten Roy
--- On Fri, 4/6/12, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Fri, 4/6/12, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___