Let's ask you on a personal basis.
I can't represent all Hindus, you can't represent all Muslims.
1.
Freedom of speech - Say you draw a Hindu God and make a cartoon in a very demeaning manner. I will be offended. I will be pissed off but that will be all. But if I draw a very respectful drawing depicting (you know who) him, what will be your reaction?
2.
Freedom of religion - Say Tom has been forced by (Say) Mahmud to convert by force - gun to head and all
) Now after Mahmud dies due to an accident, Tom reverts back to (say) Buddhism, he becomes an apostate - does he not?. Besides as a non Muslim he
can't practice his faith openly in any Islamic land...but let's not go into that(The Pact).
3.
Equality - In the Holy Quran there are some strict divisions of humankind - namely Momeen, Mushkrikeen, Munafiq etc. For example, a Muslim can't marry a non Muslim and can't have a legitimate (sexual) relationship with him/her(except if the woman is a slave captured as War booty. There is Dhimmi, there is Jizya - and all this is well scripted. There are rules of conduct between believers and un-believers(for example At-Taubah). Then there are even differences among the unbelievers - like the people of the Book, and the pagans. I am leaving the 'swine ' and other dirty references out of the discussion as I have only read the Quran and not the Hadiths.
First of all, sir, it is paramount on any discussions on any faith whether it be ones own or another's to be done so with a respectful tone and understanding. Religions did not emerge out of the blue there were considerable social and cultural factors in which all great faiths emerge/reveal themselves. To understand them it is paramount to understand those conditions as well because reading these time bound texts without context is a fatal error. This attention to cultural and historicisity is not a point that
narratology makes. Narratology is basically the philosophical grounding that states that humans innately create a storied world and epistemologically (knowledge) humans learn through stories rather than logic and there is considerable support to narratology from media, developmental, neurological and clinical studies.
Building upon that point I would like to point out that faith bound texts are an amalgamation of
metaphorical stories also called
myths though it the word is used differently here and
instructions. The Quran, Geeta, Bible follow this pattern. What is the function of metaphorical stories such as we see in the Quran and Bible of the Prophets (pbut)? The story of Ram-Seeta for that matter or the moral dileema that Krishan faces? Modernist tradition has seen these as
myths great stories created by some wise man to make people become moral; however, that is not the case: critical studies and studies of old cultures and urban cultures show that stories do not just emerge they are actively created by everyone involved. In terms of religions this play has a point: see religion is revealed but it is studied by the people living in a certain society at a certain time subjected to certain forces. Therefore, to understand the text itself one must understand those times these two are intervowen. It is just as studying space requires studying time because as we orginally thought that these two are separate has been completely disproven: they are a continuum.
Therefore; I would like to point out certain things. Firstly, as I have repeatedly said, the Quran actually makes humanity brethren as it addresses them as
Children of Adam secondly, the story of human diversity as read in the story of the tower of
Babel recounted differently in the Quran and the Bible states that God created humans in divisions so that they may recognnise one another whereas the Bible recounts it as working counterproductively: humans start fighting one another. Thus, yes, there are different divisions in the text but that changes from context to context. For example, when the Quran deals with murder (which is also recounted from the story of Abel and Cain btw, though not directly named) it states that murder of
one innocent is murder of all of humanity, not Muslims. There are similar instances where the Quran, like other books, such as the Geeta, Mahbarat, Old Testament, deals with intense philosophical dilemmas such as evil, fate, faith, end, action, being and so on it addresses things in terms of abstract forms where the divisions arbitrary human world are discounted though it is up to the reader to note where exactly these divisions come. This problem has existed in the classical treastise of metaphysical inquisition and makes it easy to misunderstand.
Thirdly, sir, historically, the Jewish people have found Muslim empires more welcoming than Christian empires. It is hard to believe if we look at it now, isn't it? Why would Muslims be good to Jews? Though it has been the case, the Ottoman, Berber, Abbasiads were all much welcoming to Jewish populations than Christians and as recent as 1945 we have seen what Chrisitian misinterpretation has wrought on to the Jews. My point: separate the text from history and politics. Today, the Muslim world is the most politically volatile world. It is unjustified to paste the current scenario on the Quran. For example, in terms of freedom of speech, the Prophet (pbuh) openly entertained religious debates and questions in the
Masjid of Medina these were not always friendly as Jews, Christians, Pagans would come to the man who claimed to be a Prophet. Secondly, the Islamic society allowed a woman to criticise the great Khalifs Umer, Usman, and even Hazrat Ali on their political dealings. How was it possible if not that there existed a freedom of speech. The flourishment of the era commonly known as the Middle Ages where philosophy survived because of scholars who were Muslims is testament to the fact that there is no necessity of Islamic rule stumping freedom of speech or thought. YEs, in todays time it is so but it is more because of the political and social structures of most muslim societies rather than Islam.
Finally, sir, there are certain laws that are made in order to ensure respect and peace amongst various socities and such laws exist in India in fact. Religious persecution is punishable by law, so is discrimination. It is the reason why India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses because it was offensive to her Muslim population. Similarly, laws that contain the clause of maintaining sanctity of deep socially held meaning are encouraged and required. Thus, if there are laws that state that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) should not be drawn or depicted in any media
because it is offensive to the Muslims of the world and we respect their faith would be such an amazing expression of solidarity to 1.3 billion brethren of humanity, wouldn't it? Similarly, I would love to see laws that would maintain respect for the Hindu faith (especially in Pakistan) and other faiths. What is wrong with that?
I absolutely disagree that such clauses are against the freedom of expression. If one has to criticize it can be done with respect, there is no condition of becoming disrespectful to anyone, the intellectual debates should be separated from emotional cues. I hope my posts on PDF have shown that to people.
Religions are an intimate and deep expression and we must leave our political and ideological positions to at least read and understand them if we read them with a premature assumption then naturally we will be reinforcing our baises.
ha only jking....Another 'Islam is compatible with democracy' defense.
