deaaaaaaaaaaar prasad, when u said this only i came to know that i shudn't 've been apologetic this much. because that offense/ free speech helped us all to realize how it functions in a mutli-voice discussion.
regards, ahmed rafeek On 7/1/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Allow me to make a point: > > Its this: Rafeek after reading Arundathi Roy's interview, which states that > free speech is right to offend wanted just to try it. He took this as the > occassion. > > Now we all know the problem of "free speech" and how it can hurt. > > In the name of free speech, rafeek could've very well-offended me, dileep, > bobby, renju, murali. But free spepch always condemn creatve thinking. We > always think it is actually the other way. > > No. > > To offend one who has not offended anyone is the secular principle of free > sppech and its politics. > > am i communicating, dear Rafeek? > > > On 7/1/08, Asma Siddiqui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> It is ok Ahmad Rafeek. No >> problem. Freedom of speech must be respected. >> Thanks for liking my poems. >> >> Thanks all. >> My point was just this that one should not be irresponsible while >> exercising freedom of speech. Just as every field has some rules to >> follow. Media too has to follow the rules it has created. It should >> not be unethical in publishing things which might be hurtful to any >> community in this world. >> On a similar note, I truly respect the differences every individual >> has with the other, but that doesnt permit me to hurt sentiments of >> any human being in any way possible. >> >> 'My freedom ends where your freedom begins.' This is the maxim I >> beleive in. >> >> I dont think freedom of speech means to purposefully cry 'fire' in a >> crowded theatre and when there is a stampede, one says 'free speech >> must be honored.' >> >> At Murali, Thanks for sharing your point of view. >> There is difference in practice and what every religion preaches. >> Every religion preaches good things but still there are crimes >> occurring in every society. Misinterpretation of religion is a sad >> thing which happens in every religion in Islam, Christianity, >> Hinduism, Buddhism etc. You cannot judge a religion on the actions of >> its followers. Why depend on others' actions if one has to understand >> something? Why should one be dependent on others' interpretation of >> anythying be it religion? In order to understand its true essence one >> must understand the religion and its teachings on his own to go deep >> into its essence and not depend on 'what its followers are doing.' >> Every religion preaches goodness, it is only how one interprets it. >> >> Thanks >> Best Regards >> Asma Siddiqui >> >> On Jul 1, 6:52 pm, "kalyani g" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Rafeek, >> > Isnt it good that the discussions should get nicer. >> > I agree with aftab, I was also pained. >> > It was not in good taste. >> > Free speech may continue... >> > >> > read more » >> > >> > kalyani >> > >> > On 7/1/08, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > *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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
