The fatwa against Salman Rushdie was issued in 1989 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran and has yet to be withdrawn
Broadcast on Iranian radio, the judgement read:
“We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur’an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions. Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini.”
That was the first time I ever felt it necessary to think about blasphemy and wondered why it is considered by some to be a crime. Sol Invictus is no longer considered a god. But the power of the Sun is such that what humans may say has no impact on its behaviour or its power. It is not necessary to criminalise or be outraged by blasphemy against the Sun. Clearly no all mighty, all knowing god would have any need – or any use – for puny humans to defend the divine reputation. Unless of course, he/she/it was a fiction, in which case “blasphemy” would be seen as threatening by the creators or the supporters of the fiction. Unless the gods had been created in the image of men. The greater the fiction the greater the perceived threat. The greater the outrage against an alleged blasphemy, the weaker the god must be.
All organised religions dislike blasphemy, apostasy and heresy – but it is all about the threat perceived by the members of the organisation. The weaker the foundations of the organisation the greater is the threat perceived. The outrage against The Satanic Verses (usually without even reading the book) and the violent reactions to the Mohammed cartoons were fanned by “priests” of one kind or another. We would be well rid of these organised religions and their troublesome priests.
Voltaire addressed the idiocy of blasphemy under “B” in his Philosophical Dictionary of 1764.
….. Is it not to the purpose here to remark that what has been blasphemy in one country has often been piety in another? …..
In our own times it is unfortunate that what is blasphemy at Rome, at our Lady of Loretto, and within the walls of San Gennaro, is piety in London, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Berlin, Copenhagen, Berne, Basel, and Hamburg. It is yet more unfortunate that even in the same country, in the same town, in the same street, people treat one another as blasphemers.
Nay, of the ten thousand Jews living at Rome there is not one who does not regard the pope as the chief of the blasphemers, while the hundred thousand Christians who inhabit Rome, in place of two millions of Jovians who filled it in Trajan’s time, firmly believe that the Jews meet in their synagogues on Saturday for the purpose of blaspheming.
A Cordelier has no hesitation in applying the epithet of blasphemer to a Dominican who says that the Holy Virgin was born in original sin, notwithstanding that the Dominicans have a bull from the pope which permits them to teach the maculate conception in their convents, and that, besides this bull, they have in their forum the express declaration of St. Thomas Aquinas.
But the concept of blasphemy has now extended to being “offending the sensibilities” of one section of a community by another. Unfortunately “not giving offense” has become the new norm. Communities compete to see who can be more outraged. Publishers run scared in India of printing anything criticising Hinduism or Islam for fear of “offending sensibilities”. All over Europe the truth about the behaviour of some groups is suppressed to “avoid giving offense”. It is actions being subordinated to fears. It is the cowardice of “political correctness”
The “never give offence” brigade imagines that a more plural society requires a greater imposition of censorship. In fact it is precisely because we do live in plural societies that we need the fullest extension possible of free speech. In such societies, it is both inevitable and important that people offend the sensibilities of others. It is inevitable, because where different beliefs are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable; and we should deal with those clashes openly and robustly rather than suppress them. It is important because any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply held sensibilities. Or to put it another way: “You can’t say that!” is all too often the response of those in power to having their power challenged. To accept that certain things cannot be said is to accept that certain forms of power cannot be challenged.
Of course any society must itself decide where its limits of “free speech” are to be set. What constitutes “hate speech” or “incitement to violence” or “libel” or “slander” and should be banned is up to each society to decide. But no society needs to protect any gods – supposed to be all powerful – against blasphemy.
The k2p blog 