*Please read the corrected word yellow highlighted.* *"free speech doesnt mean you be disrespective to YOUR elders" * * *the discussion seemed to me getting 'nicer', BUT i apologetically admit that my response was insensitive in search of breaking the 'niceness'.
> aftab, prasad, asma and all others who might get offended, please accept my > apology. (in fact i too liked asma's poems) > > ahmed rafeek > > > On 7/1/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hm... very insensitive remark > > > > On 7/1/08, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > being romantic in poems on green fields and queens may sound nice, > > > > > > I am a bit pained by the hidden meaning it conveyed... > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ahmed rafeek j < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards > > > > > > Afthab Ellath > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
