hi fortunately islam is not holding the position of dominance in the european context of blasphemy/ secularism.
no matter what the scripcture preaches transcendental to history. we see how brutally the teachings of islam unfolding in the socieites where it is dominant like pakistan, s a u d i a r a b i a, a f ga nistan and all. reciprocal respect in multi-cultured society is not exactly applicable in all the context. we 've to be discriminating to the different groups and communities. and romantic imagination of respecting others may include all the 'stupid' senior citizens, but it may miss the respect the differences. differences will include the time differences. being romantic in poems on green fields and queens may sound nice, but responsibility is more important in 'actual' world. regards ahmed rafeek On 7/1/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/1/08, Asma Siddiqui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Nice discussion. > > > > > > There is an ethical or unethical side of things just as we say freedom > > of expression or censorship. > > Freedom of expression doesn't mean to be hurtful for a particular sect/ > > group. > > Islam preaches to respect others' feelings, religion and their gods. > > If the Jyllands Posten had published the cartoons only for the purpose > > of exercising freedom of expression, it shows how little they know > > about freedom. > > > > Free speech doesnt mean you be disrespective to your elders. > > Agreeing with you on all the points except the last underlined one. > > when you speak of elders, you are speaking of individuals or perhaps "senior > citizens" and not communities/ sect etc. > > We love the elders than their contemporaries because we value their > significant contributions and we dont envy or scornful about them as do > their same age or relatively same age group people. > > But a sort of irreverence is required that will only enable us understand > their real worth and have our own way. All people of all ages have to go > through or face this. > > What do you say. > > damodar > > > regards > Asma Siddiqui > > On Jul 1, 9:07 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > May be Gouri Viswanathan's concluding remark addresses your concern > > marginally. > > "To be responsive to unequal power relations in multicultural societies > and > > yet at the same time practice a form of criticism that would dispense > > altogether with offense as a measure of belief's existence:that is the > real > > challenge emerging from Rushdie affair."... > > > > read more » > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Rushdie's "blasphemy' was made more hurtful to Muslims because of > western > > > intellectuals' reclamation of him as a secular figure, marking off > believing > > > Muslims as nonsecular or nonwestern. > > > * > > > * > > > >> I think it is an important finding > > > > > Although blasphemy in a religious society provides an index of the > degree > > > to which religious opinion has become monolithic, the existence of > blasphemy > > > laws in a pluralistic society ideally acknowledges the obligation to > protect > > > difference, on the assumption that without legal recourse the > individuality > > > of community difference cannot be protected against the brutal affronts > of > > > verbal abuse. > > > > > >> How will we see it working in Indian context? What about the rights > of > > > M.F. Hussein or Baroda students... Is it different from that of Taslima? > > > Should we treat the blasphemy on Hindu sentiments and that on Muslims > > > differently? How will we define the framework of blasphemy itself? > > > > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> Some of the observations made in the last chapter of Gouri > Viswanathan's > > >> *Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief* (OUP,1998) may be > > >> of interest in this discussion. > > > > >> She engages David lawton's "Blasphemy" in that chapter. > > > > >> 1." … Lawton specifically states at the outset that his interest in > > >> blasphemy was 're-awakened by the Rushdie affair" and proclaims that he > does > > >> not "address this book to anyone who supports killing writers", as if > all > > >> those who took offence with Rushdie's novel also endorsed his death > penalty. > > > > >> 2.If blasphemy as a concept denotes the past of the European world, it > is > > >> also put to use to mark the present of the non-European world. > > > > >> 3.Talal Asad's recent criticism that religion in contemporary parlance > has > > >> become modernity's alienated self provides a useful framework to > analyse the > > >> distancing of blasphemy from the present, even when blasphemy and its > > >> persecution exist at the heart of contemporary culture. > > > > >> 4. Given the persistence of religiously motivated prosecution cases in > > >> Anglo-American culture, however sporadic they may be, why do Salman > Rushdie > > >> and Taslima Nasreen command the kind of rapt media attention they do, > > >> disproportionate to the attention > > > > >> Given to other blasphemy cases? Why, for instance, is James Kirkup, the > > >> author of the offending *Gay News *poem, not as familiar a name as > > >> Rushdie or Nasreen? > > > > >> 5. The circularity of the meanings is evident in the fact that whereas > > >> blasphemy is often a means of self definition for blasphemers, it > signifies > > >> their lack of cultural belonging in the communities they challenge, > which > > >> condemn them to irreversible expulsion, and virtually to a state of > > >> foreignness. > > > > >> From internal expressions of dissent, the construction of blasphemy > > >> as yet again foreign contributes to an endless polarization between > > >> religions and secularism, community and nation, nation and > international > > >> community. When Salman Rushdie is defended by western literary figures > and > > >> intellectuals , his dialogue with Islam is turned into a blasphemy > sponsored > > >> by the non—Islamic world… As Sara Suleri points out, Rushdie's > "blasphemy' > > >> was made more hurtful to Muslims because of western intellectuals' > > >> reclamation of him as a secular figure, marking off believing Muslims > as > > >> nonsecular or nonwestern. > > > > >> 6.Leonard Levy writes, "when the law punished indecency or bad taste, > it > > >> became a class weapon of the prosperous against the poor.the class that > made > > >> and enforced the law had little sympathy for the different taste of the > > >> class that usually broke law. No one prosecuted Mathew Arnold for his > > >> sarcasms against the Trinity in his *Literature and Dogma. * > > > > >> 7. If blasphemy is now more a discourse of rights than of creed or > belief, > > >> it is a reflection of the extent to which culture has usurped the > function > > >> of religion, religious difference itself being vociferously defended > only > > >> because it signifies *cultural *difference. > > > > >> 8.Although blasphemy in a religious society provides an index of the > > >> degree to which religious opinion has become monolithic, the existence > of > > >> blasphemy laws in a pluralistic society ideally acknowledges the > obligation > > >> to protect difference, on the assumption that without legal recourse > the > > >> individuality of community difference cannot be protected against the > brutal > > >> affronts of verbal abuse. > > > > >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> *If we see them with the framework of > > >>> modern/western individualism we will end up with advocating either > > >>> irresponsible chaos or state sponsored censorship* > > >>> ** > > >>> We will be forced to end up in state sponsored censorship, if we start > > >>> from the fear of "irresponsible chaos"... Western individualism is not > free > > >>> from this... That is why as Damodar pointed out more number of books > are > > >>> banned in the west than anywhere else... > > > > >>> But neither Islamic fundamentalism nor indian bhrahmnism can make > > >>> a different claim... > > > > >>> Freedom of expression is the freedom to express the difference... But > in > > >>> the west it is the freedom to express the "right" and to offend the > > >>> "other"... > > > > >>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, ahmed rafeek j > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>>> hi > > >>>> these subtle and overlapping categories of private and public are > > >>>> characteristics of the multi-cultured societies and hence progressive > > >>>> to be enriched. but, if we see them with the framework of > > >>>> modern/western individualism we will end up with advocating either > > >>>> irresponsible chaos or state sponsored censorship. > > > > >>>> space for 'differences' is critically important in the new world. > but, > > >>>> if you apply the yardstick of absolute rights of individuals, which > is > > >>>> the product of western modernism and was excluding all the 'other' > > >>>> groups and communities, you will end up unintentionally supporting > the > > >>>> dominance of white and brahminic elites in society, arts and > > >>>> administration. > > > > >>>> artisitic expressions are heavily capital embedded. creativity is no > > >>>> more a serene issue of individual freedom. rushdie will think about > > >>>> the publisher and market before he starts writing. mf hussain will > > >>>> visualize the walls of emerging indian middle class homes where his > > >>>> pictures will hang on. in fact it is good, as a noted thinker said > > >>>> idea is money. > > > > >>>> regars, > > >>>> ahmed rafeek > > > > >>>> On 6/28/08, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>> > Then individual' relgious expressions are private and artistci > > >>>> expression > > >>>> > are public. How will you account for the private feelings, the > > >>>> violatons of > > >>>> > one's inner experiences. > > >>>> > Can such clean categorisations of religeous and artistic > expressions > > >>>> as > > >>>> > private and public possible? I am not talking about the public > > >>>> mobilization > > >>>> > of goons or fascists.... Then how will describe the public > religeous > > >>>> > experienecs like festivals and celebrations... Even the perfomance > of > > >>>> > rituals in public... and is the artistic expression of Taslima > > >>>> entirely > > >>>> > public? > > > > >>>> > I think the expressions questioning the expressions of offence (not > > >>>> the > > >>>> > expression of freedom) is also form the freedom of expression... If > we > > >>>> ask > > >>>> > to regulate such expressions, it will be easy to end up in some > kind > > >>>> of > > >>>> > cencerships... > > > > >>>> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Abdulkareem U K <abdulkareem.uk@ > > >>>> gmail.com> > > >>>> > wrote: > > > > >>>> > > I definitely don't want to advocate freedom for someone who use > it > > >>>> to mock > > >>>> > others, or oppress others, or to prove their power. Jayllands > Posten > > >>>> > editor's argument that they published the cartoons to make muslims > > >>>> > understand they should be prepared to face mockery was certainly a > > >>>> show of > > >>>> > power. But the powerfull is always free to do anything they want. > They > > >>>> may > > >>>> > use the freedom of expression sometime, or some other cover next > time. > > >>>> They > > >>>> > would claim they felt responsible to do that. > > > > >>>> > > But an artist's right to express ideas and use of techniques need > to > > >>>> be > > >>>> > protected. Criticisms on religious beliefs and other power > structures > > >>>> cannot > > >>>> > be exempted from that. It may hurt individuals, not because they > were > > >>>> > targeted. Many of the religious believes are systematically fed in, > > >>>> mostly > > >>>> > with certain interests. If someone finds a problem there, and > > >>>> expresses it > > >>>> > in some form, I don't think the believers are the targets, but the > > >>>> system > > >>>> > that make them believe. Often we find it is the powers that drive > > >>>> system, > > >>>> > drive mobilisations against such expressions. > > > > >>>> > > With freedom of expression being such a double-edged sword, if we > > >>>> are to > > >>>> > determine whether a particular expression deserve freedom, it can > only > > >>>> be > > >>>> > done after having it expressed, other attempts would amount to some > > >>>> form of > > >>>> > censorship - which is more volnerable to misuse than freedom of > > >>>> expression > > >>>> > itself. > > > > >>>> > > I agree, not all works are relevent everywhere. However, can we > say > > >>>> art, > > >>>> > literature, voices, and thoughts expressed at some place in some > > >>>> context > > >>>> > have nothing to do beyond the context and boundaries? > > > > >>>> > > Regards > > > > >>>> > > Abdulkareem- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
