Indonesia's blasphemy law is a case study in why such laws against insulting or defaming religions, as championed by the likes of the OIC, should be flatly rejected in the West.
On the surface, they may sound well-intended and even-handed: indeed, wouldn't the world be a swell place if everybody would just be nice? But, as always, the devil is in the details. One complication arises from the fact that blasphemy laws protect ideas, not people. How, exactly, can an idea suffer hurt feelings? Also, these laws become weapons in the hands of those who are in a position to leverage their having been "offended" to their benefit. Accordingly, such laws become a tool by which to suppress political dissent and free expression -- just ask Geert Wilders.
"Jakarta, the Constitutional Court will consider amendments to the blasphemy law," by Mathias Hariyadi for Asia News, February 5:
Jakarta (AsiaNews) - In the coming days, the Indonesian Constitutional Court will consider whether to include amendments to the law on blasphemy. The debate has already raised controversy among those who want to maintain the text and human rights activists representing various NGOs, who are demanding changes to ensure "full religious freedom." Even the moderate Muslim organizations have deployed in defence of the legislation, to preserve the precepts of faith - they explain - from "deviant interpretations."
In Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, only five religions are officially recognized: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Only in 2001 Confucianismwas added, after the battle brought by the former president - who died on December 30 - Adburrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid.
The blasphemy law, in particular, prohibits anyone from expressing - publicly and deliberately - feelings of hostility, hatred and contempt for religions. The sentences in cases of violation provide for up to five years in prison. It is used primarily to target the minority that do not comply with Islamic orthodoxy, including the Ahmadiyya sect, and labels the faithful of other not recognized religions as "heretics."
Human rights activists are seeking amendments to the law which they consider "discriminatory" and "contrary to the democratic spirit" of a country that - as under the Constitution of 1945 - protects religious freedom and equal rights for all citizens. Several members of peace and human rights organizations define the blasphemy law of 1965 as a serious obstacle to freedom of worship and the pluralistic spirit of the nation. That is why in November 2009, the advocacy group Alliance for Freedom of Religion, supported by NGOs and activists for Interreligious Dialogue, has filed a formal request to the Constitutional Court asking for the norm to be amended.
However, the initiative is opposed by activists of the fundamentalist fringe in Indonesia and organizations that promote a usually moderate vision Islam, such as the Muhammadiyah and the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU). In a meeting with students in Jakarta, Kiai Hasyim Muzadi Hajj, president of Nu made clear he opposes "any initiative to amend the current law." He adds that it is necessary to "make a division between democracy and moral deviation". Last week, Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin, stressed that a change could "incite social disorder."
Suryadharma Ali, Minister for Religious Affairs, recalls that the law ensures social harmony among different (recognized) faiths in the country and stated: "Islam is open to various interpretations, but you can not touch the fundamental points of faith and doctrine. " A reference, not too implicit, to those which are branded as "deviant interpretations" promoted by some "heretical" sects such as the Ahmadis.
One man's deviant interpretation is another man's orthodoxy. The resolution to this is more freedom and more tolerant debate, not less. Ideologues never get this and nowhere can more ideologues be found than in the Islamic world, a world which functions as the great antithesis to liberty. Besides, if Islam is so wonderful and true, what is it afraid of? Let its critics be exposed for asserting errors and Islam can only become the stronger for it. Right? Also, there can be no true virtue where the opportunity to be non-virtuous is prohibited. Virtue, like truth, requires liberty to manifest itself. Otherwise, it's just a shell game. Islam is quite the shell game, now isn't it?
The resolution to this is more freedom and more tolerant debate, not less.
Not in a muslim dominated country. The practical result of lawfully mandated religious freedom in a muslim dominated society would be violence and death. The muslim mob would enforce islamic mandated dominance vigilante style once the state refuses to subjugate the kuffār.
The only way for the state to guarantee western style religious freedoms would be to viciously crack down on the inevitable muslim anti-kuffār reprisals. Not likely.
Agreed. Islam and freedom don't mix. Those who think otherwise are either being deceptive or foolish. But I welcome Islam being exposed to the light of day in free societies (and, of course, Indonesia is not one) because the more one learns about Islam the more one is appalled by it if they have any sense.
I have found it especially the case that when Islamic doctrine is put forward to Western women (e.g., that in an Islamic court of law it takes a minimum of four male witnesses for a woman to prove a charge of rape or that the wearing of way too much clothing, e.g., the burqa, is due to the burden placed on the female not to arouse too much lust in the male), the revulsion towards Islam is palpable. All part of the reason why, long-term, I am optimistic that Islam is headed for the trash heap of history. Islam and truth don't mix and so the use of truth to destroy Islam (and its warped founder) must be encouraged whenever possible.
One of my childhood jobs around the house was taking out the trash. I am writing a new book that should dismantle Muhammadenism completely and minutely.
The truth will stand any form of investigation, condemnation, criticism, lab experiment, time, misuse, translation or repetitive usage. You can deny it, hide it, suppress it, ignore it, make laws against it, hate it, try to hurt its feelings and call it names but until a higher, deeper, clearer, better understanding comes into being, the truth sits there and looks at you.
An error, like the earth is flat, sun orbits the earth, Muhammad, Jim Jones, etc. simply needs a little investigation and experimentation to find that it is untrue. As we know here @ Ji. Wa., error has been portrayed and believed as truth by many people for so long, that the conviction for error leads them to give their lives and the lives and liberty of others to keep this error assembled.
It hurts their feelings because they have invested their whole lives memorizing the koran, making error appear real, convincing their children, punishing others, being punished by others and gaining power, that even the thought that their whole life has been a waste, brings them to either tears or murderous rage.
Because cults and religions use mysticism and believe and/or are led to believe ideas or philosophies that cannot be proven, they are in a constant battle with uncertainty, doubt and fear. This doubt and fear often lead to absurd behavior and thinking.
If a human is presenting some information that only that person knows without being able to provide evidence then at the very least they should exhibit supernatural and/or miraculous powers. If all they can provide are words that have little or no humanitarian value for actual life on this earth or in this dimension, then their message is to be placed in the same category as many other charlatans, false prophets and snake oil salespersons. When someone speaks of the unknowable from the unknown there is no one to debate the issue with. You either accept it or you are doomed whether you understand it or agree with it or not. This is not from a GOD of compassion, mercy or justice. Unless information from the ‘Unknown’ has literal value in our present life, humans cannot use it to justify abusing others.
Because humans are part of the Omniverse/GOD, all human creativity, inventions, philosophies, thoughts, productions and their documentation are from the Omniverse/GOD. Human developments have evolved through processes of examination, trial and reductions in error similar to natural selection and survival of the fittest (truest). Errors in logic usually fade or are eliminated with investigation and experimentation. Religions that speak of the unknown or unknowable as the unquestionable truth or final word are stagnating the development of humanity while interfering with the deepening of the relationships that humans have with their source and sustainer in the Omniverse/GOD.
As to the use of the unknown or unknowable in providing justification for punishment on this earth, it is not acceptable in the 21st Century. The life, hand, foot, freedom or social standing of anyone can no longer be taken because someone had a vision of or heard a voice from an unknown source. If GOD creates all things including the nature and/or nurture of errant humans and takes the lives of all things eventually then GOD should be the only one taking lives, hands, feet or freedom from anyone on this planet for unknown violations, if GOD is not speaking to all with the same instructions.
If humans are going to take the lives of their fellow humans there must be valid reasons grounded in the reality that we currently exist, not superstitious, unknown or unknowable reasons. If the Omniversal GOD wants to punish or correct the creations for unknown or unknowable reasons then it must be left to this Omniversal Creator. Humans are far too corrupt to be given the authority from an unknown source to kill or punish another human for unreasonable causes only known by a God that is not speaking to all. Humans have, are and will use any justifications, including the unknown to eliminate rivals.
Muhammad did not a miraculous connection with Allah and did not provide wisdom that can be used in this age of enlightenment when school children have higher learning, wisdom and morals than he.
Wellington asked "Besides, if Islam is so wonderful and true, what is it afraid of?" Good question, though doubtless rhetorical.
Patrick, as if in partial answer, wrote:
"It hurts their feelings because they have invested their whole lives memorizing the koran, making error appear real, convincing their children, punishing others, being punished by others and gaining power, that even the thought that their whole life has been a waste, brings them to either tears or murderous rage."
On the face of it not a bad reply. But it then poses the difficulty, if self-concept, identity, and effort are the factors implicitly negated by blasphemy, why people of other faiths do not react in the same murderous and apoplectic way when their faith is questioned or even blasphemed.
At a secular level, bankruptcy for a former high-flyer, the destruction by other scientists with better evidence of the theories and research comprising an individual's life-time work - these may evoke depression, even suicide, but not murderous rage against others. The list of examples is almost endless.
No, it just might have a little to do with seventh century concepts of male honor and revenge, and even more with the very nature of the ideology under perceived attack, Islam, and the example set for his followers by the most paranoid thin-skinned individual ever to set up a system for others to live by.
But, as always, the devil is in the details.
The Koran is quite a detailed book.
*** Bukhari Vol 6 Bk 60 Nbr 662 ***
One complication arises from the fact that blasphemy laws protect ideas, not people.
And the Koran is also chock full of ideas. Hyper-negative ideas, aggressive ideas, yes, but ideas nonetheless.
*** 92:8 ***
In the hands of lawyers, the Koran is like a tilted playing field. Tilted its way, like a down chute.
And this is where Obama spent his formative years. That explains a great deal. Perhaps his Hubris is based on his early school days in his madrassa. Being told over and over that one is superior to all others because of ones religion would be hard to shake. Isn't that what belonging to a gang is all about?
I share in your optimism. Truth is a hard thing to kill.
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
For a religion whose name means 'submission', it seems bizarre/illogical to talk about 'freedom' within that so-called religion.
who says you can't go to jail for what your thinking? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdDK5psRwo
"just ask Geert Wilders."
Ask the guy who wants to ban the Koran?
AlaskanInfidel you are absolutely right. B Hussein O spent his early years in Indonesia being steeped in the learning by rote of the Koran. Hence his belief that he is superior to everybody else and his refusal to listen to anybody with any common sense. I just wonder if Michele was also being indoctrinated in a madrasa next to his? One for only girls of course!
"The blasphemy law, in particular, prohibits anyone from expressing - publicly and deliberately - feelings of hostility, hatred and contempt for religions. "
Anyone?....does this include Muslims?..
Way off-subject alert!
Can I just break in to say that today is the 58th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, so it's party on at Hardrain House tonight. I wish you could all attend.
It's a bhangra party to celebrate the Raj, so ladies wear your sari's and gentlemen, please keep your cigars unlit until after the loyal toast. The bar is free and I hope you like Indian food. Music and dancing by the Hot Bhangra 5 and the Bollywoodz.
On behalf of all loyal Britons, and particularly those of us in the Resistance who stand for true British values, I send best wishes to all at JW on this glorious day.
May God bless and protect our noble sovereign!
"It hurts their feelings because they have invested their whole lives memorizing the koran, making error appear real, convincing their children, punishing others, being punished by others and gaining power, that even the thought that their whole life has been a waste, brings them to either tears or murderous rage.
Well said, and also something I've never considered before. If Muslims can't bear to be mocked, then having their emotional and practical investment in Islam belied by the cold, hard, infidel world would be a shock.
What is perplexing is why this would promote so much pathological rage. In a non-Muslim, this isn't the normal reaction to being exposed to non-belief. I can understand depression, despair, and anguish, but not the deadly poisonous rage exibited time and again by Muslims.
Good luck and godspeed on your book, Patrick!
You know the oft-used phrase "Middle East peace?"
That will happen only when the Middle East becomes Judeo-Christian again.
The Jihad doctrine in Islam, along with it's rabid insane hatred of Jews and Christians, prohibits any "Middle East peace." Islam must either be reformed or abolished.
MBR,
LOL...You said it before I read it. You also said it better.
Gee, do you think our shared bafflement might be an indicator that there is something to be baffled about?
Jew/Christian-hating "allah" in the "Mein Korampf":
"Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."
"apes and swine" - that's Jews.
Abscedere, Patrick and MBR
Juicy topic. Can I have a crack at it too, please?
The Muslim predisposition to violent reactions is a consequence of the violent doctrines they absorb when learning Islamic ideology, a process that begins in childhood and continues throughout life. We often observe that the more devout and pious a Muslim becomes, the more prone to violent jihad he, or she, becomes.
It's almost impossible to debate with Muslims because of the huge differences in our civilisational ways of thinking. In the West we debate using Greek logic, which requires us to draw upon impartial evidence from the world around us in order to validate our stated position.
Muslim logic, however, can often seem peculiarly closed-off, elliptical and self-referencing and almost always boils down, after a long and arduous struggle, to a single stated position that "it must be true because the Koran says so." A position which is barren to us, because it defies our Greek logic ideas of the establishment of objective truth through the presentation of impartial conclusive evidence. The assertion that an objective truth can be conclusively established by the offering of overwhelming amounts of pertinent evidence is, of course, the logic behind the Jihad Watch website itself.
Muslim logic is just one of the many ways in which the Islamic system stifles independent thinking in order to discourage any critical analysis by Muslims themselves. It is essentially a method of mind control designed to maintain the edifice of Islam in an unquestionable position of absolute power by annihilating the idea of rational discourse and independent thought. Although conceived by Muslims as a method of control over other Muslims, the prison of Islamic logic not only locks them in, but also unfortunately locks non-Muslims out, rendering any meaningful debate difficult, if not impossible. This is a wall through which we will probably never break.
Yes, I think this is the direction such enquiry needs to follow.
You said "the prison of Islamic logic not only locks them in, but also unfortunately locks non-Muslims out, rendering any meaningful debate difficult, if not impossible."
Agreed, but I also have the same locked-out experience when discussing Islam with PC Westerners. Sure, they don't brandish the Koran as their ultimate backup weapon, but their supreme emotional and moral certainty inevitably ends the conversation. Thomas Sowell was into this 15 years ago with his "The Vision of the Anointed".
Wilders is facing this mindset right now. European 'rights law' is almost a Koranic equivalent.
Patrick, MBR and Hard Rain, excellent posts.
Christianity, certainly, actually has a tradition of questioning the faith, going back at least to St. Augustine. Mother Theresa also experienced a crisis of faith.
Muslims are not permitted a crisis of faith, nor to question their religion in any way.
And Hard Rain, good point about the circularity of "Muslim logic".
MBR, Abscedere, Hard Rain, gravenimage:
Thankyou.
At first I was interested in your responses; then facinated; then I was overwhelmed by love for strangers that I do not know nor have I ever seen. I realized that with so many people sleeping while the Jihadie thieves are looting the civilized world and replacing it with barbarism, it is immensely rewarding to feel that I am not alone in my awarenesses.
Thanks for the kind words, Patrick.
I think we all understand those feelings of isolation you mention, especially those of us down here in Oz and NZ.
Patrick
Yes, thank you brother. I echo MBRs feelings about feeling isolated. I felt that way for years until I stumbled upon you guys.
At least here we can all join hands across the world, and we can thank Robert Spencer for that, so cheers Bob!