I think we should avoid good adjectives, such as 'highly educated', as much as derogatory adjectives, such as 'stupid' on anyone in this forum. Both personal attacks and personal eulogies taint the objectivity of the point that we want to make, and should be avoided. Instead of praising the messenger, we should praise the message if it is praiseworthy; very similar concept as attacking the message as opposed to the messenger.
As for the term, "highly educated", let me talk a bit of my philosophy. To me, having an academic degree and being educated are not the same thing. There are two broadly accepted definitions of "educated": 1) someone who has acquired knowledge (mostly via academic degrees), 2) someone who has developed the powers of reasoning and judgment. I would emphasize the later definition. I would not accept a collection of knowledge as education, if it does not instill intelligent reasoning that leads to fair judgments. Looking at the sorry state of affairs in Bangladesh , one can certainly infer that a lot of people in high positions in the government there are not educated, at least by my definition. I have also seen too many people who have the Ph.D. degree, but do not stand up to the definition of "educated" by my book.
As for a blasphemy law, I would again assert that insult on God/messenger of any kind should be beyond the scope of human laws. If it is to be punished, God almighty should do that himself. Humans of any kind should not be in the business of punishing insulters of God/messenger of any kind. Simple intelligent reasoning should allow people to realize that the almighty does not need the help from humans, who are nothing compared to His power.
Now, let me be clear that I personally do not like people insulting the God/messenger of any religion. The insults provide no positive outcome, they can only provoke anger. I do not even like criticizing the stupidity in a thousand year old religious book. I think people should just use their common sense to take only what is good, while discarding what is bad, in religions.
Let me end here by asking a few questions to my seriously-Muslim brothers/sisters. Does Islam allow bribery? What does Islam condemn more, bribery or eating pork? Among Bangladeshi Muslims are there more pork-eaters than bribe-takers/givers? (After some answers, I might have some comments.)
Sukhamaya Bain
========================================
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 10:24 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 10:24 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Fw: Demand for the Blasphemy Law
| When I hear demand for a law to protect the integrity of the God (or His messenger) from highly educated people, like Mr. S. A. Hannan, I keep wondering where their logical thinking abilities are. Don't they understand that, by asking for such a law, they are, in fact, questioning the almightiness of the God? This is not such a complicated logic. Is it? If it comes from an uneducated religious person, I could understand but, mere fact that, such thought can emanate from highly educated people also - really puzzles me. In my view – there is only one reason for the Blasphemy Law, and that is to block all criticisms of the subject. You do so when you are not confident about the integrity of the subject, and you are afraid that it will not withstand criticisms. If your faith is genuine, it should withstand all criticisms. Where am I going wrong? Jiten Roy ===================== |
__._,_.___
