Khalistanis depict assassination of Indira Gandhi in Canada

[nahtanbob]

If someone was insulting your mother and using vulgar gestures, would you ignore? or beat the shit our of them?

At some point you have to ignore

Are you going to fight everyone in India who insults Islam ?

 

[Drexluddin Khan Spiveyzai]

At some point you have to ignore

Are you going to fight everyone in India who insults Islam ?

That's a separate question. But do you accept that it's fundamentally wrong to commit sacrilege? Of any belief. Hindu or Muslim. I think so.

Do Charlie Hebdo style cartoons make the world a more tolerant and peaceful place? Or exploit the hidden fault lines for generating controversy?

 

[Drexluddin Khan Spiveyzai]

it is hard to disagree with what you say. B U T .
a non-violent response is better than a violent one.

Of course. Violent response makes it all worse, which as it just so happens is almost always the intent of the blasphemer.

You see, all major religions have wonderful philosophies, concepts and morals.
B U T. all of them also seem to have somehow snuck into them , pronouncements such as I am the best, I am the Only, I am the greatest, I am the Last etc etc. That builds-in into each religion an insult to or at least a derision towards all others.

It then follows that people who follow the high roads of a religion as well as those who follow the lower pronouncements - both feel holy, pure, 'God fearing' adherents. Thus conflict is built in inside the structure.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that the conviction in one's own religion being true leads to blaspheming about others' religion. Every Muslim on the planet thinks so. So does every Christian and Jew. Dharmic religions I understand, esp Hinduism, like pointed out of @Joe Shearer are not as absolute or rigid in terms of the "right way" or "path to salvation". But, you'd be the minority.

Yet, it's still a few deranged people who do this vile stuff and spread hatred. Most of us just get along fine, don't we? I firmly believe in Islam. Doesn't mean I have to go out and disparage Hinduism.

I have not said anything that you don't know. B U T. since therefore conflict is unavoidable, let us exercise that with pen artfully rather than with swords and guns violently.

Since we seem to agree that blasphemy is not a form of creative expression or freedom of speech, and never does anything to make the world a better place. Like, do Charlie Hebdo style cartoons make the world a more tolerant and peaceful place? Or exploit the fault lines for generating controversy?

So, I think blasphemy against any religious belief or personage should be frowned upon by society at the very least and, ideally, criminalized. We already have laws about preventing civil strife in our respective penal codes, don't we? How is this any different.

Unfortunately, the justice and policing systems in our countries are abysmal and as long as bad stuff happens to minorities, it's considered fair game . But, this stuff adds up over time and blows up in our face every now and then. Since India is much more diverse and not as heterogeneous as Pakistan, this is more pronounced there with tragedies like Gujarat riots and Dehli riots. I am not aware if any massacres took place in Pakistan of the scale but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

@Joe Shearer , sir, I read your reply as well. I can't comment of the specific instances of Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen since I haven't really read up of any of them but I am in principle against this stuff as I don't believe it adds any value to the discourse around religion. Making cartoon of Hazrat Muhammad SAW isn't going to make muslims less intolerant and terrorist-y

As for graphic depictions of the Prophet PBUH being common in Iran, I think that's only because they are an unmistakably Shia majority country. Shias are a global minority and Shia doctrine is not considered orthodox by any measure.

 

[ProudThamizhan]

Of course. Violent response makes it all worse, which as it just so happens is almost always the intent of the blasphemer.


I respectfully disagree with the idea that the conviction in one's own religion being true leads to blaspheming about others' religion. Every Muslim on the planet thinks so. So does every Christian and Jew. Dharmic religions I understand, esp Hinduism, like pointed out of @Joe Shearer are not as absolute or rigid in terms of the "right way" or "path to salvation". But, you'd be the minority.

Yet, it's still a few deranged people who do this vile stuff and spread hatred. Most of us just get along fine, don't we? I firmly believe in Islam. Doesn't mean I have to go out and disparage Hinduism.


Since we seem to agree that blasphemy is not a form of creative expression or freedom of speech, and never does anything to make the world a better place. Like, do Charlie Hebdo style cartoons make the world a more tolerant and peaceful place? Or exploit the fault lines for generating controversy?

So, I think blasphemy against any religious belief or personage should be frowned upon by society at the very least and, ideally, criminalized. We already have laws about preventing civil strife in our respective penal codes, don't we? How is this any different.

Unfortunately, the justice and policing systems in our countries are abysmal and as long as bad stuff happens to minorities, it's considered fair game . But, this stuff adds up over time and blows up in our face every now and then. Since India is much more diverse and not as heterogeneous as Pakistan, this is more pronounced there with tragedies like Gujarat riots and Dehli riots. I am not aware if any massacres took place in Pakistan of the scale but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

@Joe Shearer , sir, I read your reply as well. I can't comment of the specific instances of Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen since I haven't really read up of any of them but I am in principle against this stuff as I don't believe it adds any value to the discourse around religion. Making cartoon of Hazrat Muhammad SAW isn't going to make muslims less intolerant and terrorist-y

As for graphic depictions of the Prophet PBUH being common in Iran, I think that's only because they are an unmistakably Shia majority country. Shias are a global minority and Shia doctrine is not considered orthodox by any measure.

Charlie Hebdo (the first ones) were certainly creative but was an overt attempt to insult your prophet, purportedly avenging attacks by terrorists. And that’s what is doubly sad - they had creative people and art and could have done it more intelligently than affronting all of Islam.

As to the he part you disagree with - let me take an extreme, to illustrate, not to provoke. I’ve read many Muslims say Muhammad was last prophet. So when another group of people believe a later prophet , Muslims by diktat if Islam must say that’s is incorrect. Or risk serious retribution.

Other religions also have similar intemperate pronouncements. For example there’s a Hindu sloka that goes regardless which God one prays to, the prayer ultimately reaches Vishnu. This will not be an agreeable thought for a Muslim or Christian or even a Shaivaite Hindu.

My point is , even a wise follower of religion must be careful to be skeptical about such aberrations within their religion and learn to take what’s good. If some extremist fellow practitioner says you’re not therefore a good adherent , can you ignore that move on. That is the key IMO to happy coexistence

 

[nahtanbob]

That's a separate question. But do you accept that it's fundamentally wrong to commit sacrilege? Of any belief. Hindu or Muslim. I think so.

Do Charlie Hebdo style cartoons make the world a more tolerant and peaceful place? Or exploit the hidden fault lines for generating controversy?

there is freedom of expression in many parts of the world. do you want to go about responding to every provocation ? it is that simple

Do you think there was a bounty on Salman Rushdie because he truly insulted Islam ? Or was it because Iran had to seek a humiliating peace with Iraq ? I let you decide

 

[Drexluddin Khan Spiveyzai]

As to the he part you disagree with - let me take an extreme, to illustrate, not to provoke. I’ve read many Muslims say Muhammad was last prophet. So when another group of people believe a later prophet , Muslims by diktat if Islam must say that’s is incorrect. Or risk serious retribution.

Allow me to surprise you, sir. There is nothing insulting about that statement. It will simply be taken as denying something called the "finality of Prophethood". According to all orthodox Muslims, denying the finality of Muhammad SAW's prophethood (that he was the last prophet) means you are no longer Muslim. That's all. It's not an insult and no different that denying "Tawheed" i.e. the One-ness of God. It's a question of creed, since both of these are the basic beliefs in Islam. But, not at all insulting

Other religions also have similar intemperate pronouncements. For example there’s a Hindu sloka that goes regardless which God one prays to, the prayer ultimately reaches Vishnu. This will not be an agreeable thought for a Muslim or Christian or even a Shaivaite Hindu.

Allow me to surprise you once again, sir. That is exactly the belief we have. And I suppose all theistic religions have do as well. Since there is one God, (or one primary God i.e. Vishnu in Hinduism), all prayers go to him and he is the sole provider for all, regardless of whether they were directed at him.

There is a beautiful story that we're told about this.
As you may have read, Moses would go to the Mount Sinai to talk to God. And therefore, people would tell him to convey their requests/prayers and sometimes complaints to God.

Once as he was going to meet God, a person dissatisfied with his life told him to tell God that he will stop praying to him. On the way back, he asked Moses what God replied. Moses told him that God said, "You can stop praying to me. It doesn't make a difference for me."

Next time, that person again told Moses to tell God, " I will stop believing in you as well". His reply this time was, "You can do that. It doesn't make a difference for me."

Next time, the person told Moses to tell God, "I will stop eating your Rizq (food/sustenance)".
His reply was, "You cannot do that. That you'll only get from me. No one else can give provide that."

My point is , even a wise follower of religion must be careful to be skeptical about such aberrations within their religion and learn to take what’s good. If some extremist fellow practitioner says you’re not therefore a good adherent , can you ignore that move on. That is the key IMO to happy coexistence

Tolerance is without a doubt a good trait.

there is freedom of expression in many parts of the world. do you want to go about responding to every provocation ? it is that simple

If you view it as freedom of expression, then we have nothing to talk about.

Do you think there was a bounty on Salman Rushdie because he truly insulted Islam ? Or was it because Iran had to seek a humiliating peace with Iraq ? I let you decide

That is laughable and shows you don't understand how blasphemy works.

I believe we have nothing more to discuss. Thanks.

 

[MirageBlue]

Cope pajeets.

If you disrespect my religion then you better be ready for what will come.

We aren’t puss*es like you. We will retaliate. Our religion is worth more than our lives to us.


Nah it’s more of a promise

All bluster.

Where does this chest thumping disappear when the question of the treatment of Uyghurs comes up?

Chinese daddy se darr lagta hain? Not gonna retaliate against papa Xi? Suddenly life becomes worth more than religion?

 

[Asian.Century]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1704055317829681176

 

[Asian.Century]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1704027100028838002