The outpost of liberty
2: It’s outrageous. These violent protests. They caused a lot of damage.
1: Have you have seen the way Taslima Nasrin was brought up again, without context, and politicized?
2: Yeah! (gleams)
1: I agree. I don’t like it too. It only makes Nasrin more credible. She has now become the symbol of courage! The outpost of liberty!
2: That’s not the point. The point is that she must be allowed to talk freely.
1: I agree. But only as long as he/she is truthful, isn’t?
2: That’s completely irrelevant. Everybody’s views should be heard.
1: Should lies not be accountable? I mean if tomorrow somebody goes around telling that you stole his money- with a megaphone- will you let him get away?
2: We are talking Nasrin, and not what might happen to me.
1: Yes, and we still are. I agree with you that violences serve no purpose. I am trying to go beyond that, and discuss what Nasrin is trying to say.
2: It doesn’t matter.
1. Duh!
———————
Well, if it doesn’t matter, then what is the big deal if the politicians lie? Or is it that 2’s version of free speech apply in very specific cases?
But then, we are discussing Nasrin, and not what politicians do. 2 does have a logic.
“It only makes Nasrin more credible. She has now become the symbol of courage! The outpost of liberty!”
alas, this is so true – ignoring her would have been/is still the best option
however, now this is an issue beyond religious sensibilities – if she has been disrespectful towards Islam, let God handle that
Humanist principles demand that she be left alone – she needs a break!
Raza
I am pessimistic about that, Raza. The account she has to give will tickle too many people, and they will not like to be silent about it. They’ll say- “look- here’s what we were telling you about all the time.”
Now that results in some know-all egoist Musilms getting offended. They get down on the street, throw stones, goes back home happily that they have saved Islam.
It just had to happen. (With media being out of Muslims’ reach.)
We really are not having a meaningful dialogue. People are just ready to go as far as it serves their ego.
Nasrin has become an icon, and we need to start the real dialogue. Not throwing stones and burning buses. Nor mouthful words of liberty.
I don’t mind somebody criticizing Islam as long as it is a criticism, and not defamation.
I agree that whatever she says or does will return to God, but at the same time, we should be worried about others who will hear her and be misled. What about her? If she doesn’t realize her mistakes, she may have to suffer for ever! That’s definitely not desirable.
May God give her wisdom and forgive her.
Manas, I am afraid I wouldn’t agree with your point of view here.
And, most definitely not with the analogy you have attempted at providing (assuming, of course, that you are the figure of ‘1′ )
I am not of any opinion regarding the particularities of Taslima’s writings; however, I am convinced that you are convinced that whatever she has written (or parts of it), is a lie. Well, good! Disagreement is an agreeable human nature. And, as a person as free as Taslima, you have every right to voice your opinions, your disagreements, your version of ‘the truth’.
Bear in mind though, that even if what Taslima has written is false; even if she goes on tomorrow to accuse me of murder or theft; she might believe it to be true; and hence, I have no right to stop her from opinionating, or to take away the free speech that I so greedily grasp for myself (which you too do through this blog, and I am certain many around the world would consider many of your own writings/opinions to be false).
Of course, if I am accused in this manner, I am going to take action against it, but legally and democratically. If false allegations have been made on me, it is my own duty to prove them false with substantial evidence. Persecuting and taking away the rights of the accuser, does not, in any way, prove his/her allegations to be false.
Freedom of speech and expression is pivotal to any progressive society; and those who voice their opinions against it are also, ironically enough, using their own freedom of speech and expression.
This does not, in any way, boil down to your illogical conclusion that it doesn’t matter if politicians lie. If we are convinced that they are lying, then we go around and comprehensively prove so; we take legal action if required, but democratically.
Just because we believe that a poiltician is lying, irrespective of the fact whether our belief in this regard is ultimately correct or not, does not mean we go and pillage his very existance and steal awat his rights.
Freedom of speech and expression is in fact so pivotal, that it cannot, as you suggest, limited to those who are telling the truth. Because honestly, we cannot know what the truth is, even if you supposedly do, unless every one has said whatever they believe to be the truth. We cannot take law into our own hands!
narziss
you sure have taken a lot of time in writing this. i shall try to do justice in my reply.
if she believes in what she says, then she’s suffering from a mental illness (i am absolutely serious). in that case she should be in a mental hospital, and not writing.
which she is not. she has had some problems in her childhood. she generalized the cause of injustices to all Muslims and then to Islam itself.
she uses distorted translation of the Qur’an to make it look like what she wants it to look like. sharique did a good job refuting her in one of his old posts.
this is actually making a very dangerous assumption- that it can not be proved that she is lying. in fact, it should be quite easy to prove that she’s using distorted translation of the Qur’an to her own ends.
same for the politicans. there are well defined rules. the courts, for example, declare somebody is guilty of deceit when it is satisfied with the proof.
we can not. i am not saying we can. i am not saying the violences were the right thing to do. i made that quite clear when i said- “I agree with you that violences serve no purpose.”
in fact the violences make it difficult to argue. people tend to take sides when things are awry.
freedom of speech seems to have become a holy cow these days. i do not think it can benefit anyone if the power of free speech does not come with the responsibility of being honest. with power comes responsibility.
you seem to have misunderstood what i am trying to say. i am not saying let us break glasses. i am saying let us discuss the substance of nasrin has to say, and let us be responsible for what we say.
See, again, you are going into the particularities of her writings about which I neither have particular knowledge, nor opinion.
My point is simple: Suppose she is lying, and she is mad; you are doing your bit in expressing your views against it, and providing the needed reasons. Whether or not she needs to be in a mental asylum; the only thing I am against in your line of argument is when you say:
I don’t think that even a mad liar doesn’t have a right to express herself or himself. Bear in mind, that since I don’t agree to this one point that you have made, I am not making blatant remarks that you should stop writing. Of course, we should be responsible for what we write, but that is done through dialogue, like we are doing at the moment.
My intention is soleley to make you realize that you are using your freedom of speech, but want to curb someone else’s. I don’t have the slightest of problem in the fact that we are having a disagreement now: that’s the whole idea behind freedom of speech! But to take away this freedom just to avoid disagreements is something I consider to be extremely and absurdly preposterous.
Again, you have the freedom to disagree with me; but here I rest my point!
I do not think we differ so much that we can not come to terms.
What I am trying to say is that if she is mad- and a doctor can decide on that (that too is belief)- then she should not be lauded as the outpost of liberty. I am not saying that her mouth has to be covered with tape if she is mad. Only it does not deserve to be published in newspapers and magazines.
If she is not mad, it wouldn’t be difficult to prove that she’s tampering with texts. That is a crime, and she should be put in jail for that.
Freedom of speech is not a holy cow. There are laws against defamation and lying.
I am expressing my freedom of speech, and I am ready to bear responsibility for what I say. I am ready to apologize if I say something wrong. And I should be ready to go to jail if I defame or mislead people.
Let me remind you of this Hadith: (I’ve forgotten the narrator)
“if you see something being done wrong, correct it by hand. if that is not possible, then express your disagreement. if that too is not possible, then dislike it from your heart. and that is the last station of faith.”
i wonder why we dont talk more about how to minimise the ladies taking her path. what is it with Our atheists. is it about rationality, the politics, the urge, the parents?
fugstar
really good point. my guess will be that we need to cleanse (or some would prefer reform) our society. hirsi ali may have lied, but things that she talked about do happen. nasrin’s account of her early life is also painful.
bad experiences in early life can turn people’s mind into rebels, unless they are amended by other good things. later (my guess will be) lure for fame, money and revenge all may work together to make a hirsi ali/taslima nasrin.
it is interesting, though, that most of the people who take this path are women (ali, nasrin, sultan). is that because men gain from the status quo? maybe. or maybe women detractor catch more attention than men do.
question is- are men actually gaining anything from the deplorable experience women may go through?
Hang on old chap. I’m interested in removing the thorns in the experience of the deen, not absolving people of house niggerism. Just because they are women doesnt mean im going to be extra gracious. They are both liabilities. Im not really thinking of them, more of the people they are trying to harm.
The disease need to be treated and the pain understood. That a Ms Nasrin can be produced from a society that considers itself Muslim is a real problem. Most people in Bangladesh dont think much of the alleged intelligensia that typifies Dhaka and the cultural values it propagates.
So theres a disconnect. and this is historical. Dhaka University is basically the east bengal rendering of the Alighar project, compensation for the british surrender to baniyas and revocation of the first partition of bengal. After desh independance the iqra bismi rabika motto was replaced with something less… you know. so we have a few sets of baggage in there.
As an indian muslim, maybe you’ll ‘get’ this. we need more jamia millat modeled rather than alighar modeled further education institutions in BD. The woman under the microscope is symptomatic of something very wrong in the values, character and collective intelligence of the bengali muslim qaum.
Questions for me are:
What do you do with such people?
How do you stop them reproducing and becoming so warped in the first place?
How serious are we about bringing down the rate of zina and bastard births?
answer to your q is – some men are gaining curses.
“I don’t mind somebody criticizing Islam as long as it is a criticism, and not defamation.”
On that note…did you read Ayan Hirsi Ali’s editorial in the New York times a couple of days ago? Would you say she is ‘criticizing’ or ‘defaming’ Islam in that write up? She is going to be a guest speaker at the Princeton forum and I’m looking forward to attending it.
I didn’t. I have heard one interview, read another, and was surprised by her total ignorance about Islam, and also her mendaciousness.
I don’t know how to explain this, but she’s a pawn (and a willing one) in somebody else’s game. (For example, when in Europe, she vociferated in favor of secularism, gay rights, feminism etc. Now, when with the Neocons,
(here))
I can think of only two reasons people may take her seriously- one- those who want to use her (this lot is very dangerous) and two- those who are even more ignorant than she is (this lot is very vulnerable).
Here is the link to the op-ed piece written by Ms Ali.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html
I look forward to your analysis of this write up…
fug
I will better write a post about it.
I Me My
I shall, if I get the time. In the meantime, you can read this: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/
Oh, and the verse she quoted had nothing to do with the verdict. The woman was not guilty of fornication. She was punished for being with her boyfriend and going to the media. That is different from the rape case. She is deliberately quoting this verse to lead people to think that the woman was punished for being raped.
you can see this: http://wishsubmission.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/punishing-a-rape-victim/
[...] Fug’s question made me grapple for an answer. [...]