Blasphemy
Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of one or more gods. In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable. Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the deity or deities of their established religions, and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.
In Judaism, blasphemy is the uttering of God's name. Under Christian theology, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable. In Islam, blasphemy constitutes speaking ill of the Qur'an itself, Muhammad, or any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an.
Pakistan has the strictest anti-blasphemy laws in countries where Muslims are in the majority. In 1986, Section 295C to the Pakistan Penal Cose was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet." In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no concept of blasphemy, while Jainism calls the teaching of the false blasphemous.
In Western countries, there has been recent movement toward the repeal or reform of blasphemy laws, with these laws only being infrequently enforced. However, on June 29, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg adopted a rule on blasphemy, religious insults, and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion.
Some American states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days, such as those in the Massachusetts General Laws. The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was in Massachusetts, in 1838. In England, the blasphemy laws have never been repealed, with the last person in Britain to being sent to prison in 1921 for the crime.
Etymology
From Middle English blasfemen, from Old French blasfemer, from Late Latin blasphemare, from Greek blasphemein, from blaptein, "to injure," and pheme, "reputation." Blasphemy, which was opposed to "euphemy", and has also given "blame" from Old French blasmer.
History
Blasphemy in Judaism
In the third book of the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death."
The use of God's name constituted blasphemy according to Judaism. Yet blasphemy cannot be limited to the utterance of God's name. People were also guilty of blasphemy if they were idolators, manifested disrespect towards God, and insulted his chosen leaders. Other offenses could also count as blasphemy, especially comparing oneself to God.
The origin of the Jewish blasphemy law stems from one of the multitude during the Exodus (Leviticus 24:10-23) who cursed in the name of the Lord. The blasphemer was sentenced to be taken outside the camp, and that all who heard him should lay their hands upon his head, and that all the congregation should stone him. The general law was formulated in verses 15 and 16.
The lawgiver and prophets state that reviling the king, who acts as God's representative, is considered a form of blasphemy (Exodus 22, 27; Isaiah 8.21). It is further shown indicated in the case of Naboth, who was indicted: "Thou didst blaspheme God and the king" (I Kings 21:10).
The Mishnah states that term nokeb declares that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the name of God (Mishnah Sanh. 7.5). The Gemara extends the definition of the crime to a disrespectful use of any words which describe the sacred attributes of God, such as "The Holy One" or "The Merciful One." When the Jewish courts exercised criminal jurisdiction, the death penalty was applied to the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name; but the blasphemer of God's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment (Sanh. 56a). According to Talmudic tradition, the Sacred Name was in early times known to all; but later its use was restricted.
When taking testimony during a blasphemy trial, witnesses who heard the blasphemy were not permitted to repeat the very words, with an arbitrary phrase replacing the offending language. The excommunication of the blasphemer could be substituted as a punishment for the death penalty, rendering it unnecessary for the witnesses to repeat the identical blasphemous words (Pithe Teshubah to Yoreh De'ah, 340, 37). In addition to the court's punishment, according to Abba Saul, the blasphemer is also excluded from the life in the world to come ('Ab. Zarah 18a).
Jesus and blasphemy
Jesus would have challenged the Jewish people’s concept of blasphemy, including his claim that he would sit at God's right hand and return with glory on the clouds would occur in the future. Yet in the Old Testament, a few honored men do sit in God's presence, including Moses, David, and Enoch; Adam and Abraham sit to witness the final judgment; and Abel sits when the Last Judgment commences. The most exalted figure is Enoch in 1 Enoch 37-71, since he is honored as the Son of Man who will conduct the End Time judgment. Angels on the whole do not share the exalted position of the few human beings bestowed with honor. Only Gabriel among the angels sits in God's presence and in this instance he serves merely as Enoch's escort. This high honor bestowed on Enoch and Enoch-Metatron led to criticism of his stature in some circles, showing that some Jewish writers feared that the uniqueness of God was threatened.
Jesus' claim to be the End Time judge was not blasphemy per se to the Jewish leaders (given the tradition of Enoch as Son of Man), but what they objected to was Jesus' arrogation of this role. The startling directness with which the earthly Jesus claims such authority would scandalize the religious leaders. Those honored in the past might have been considered worthy of such a role, though even here, some Jews were nervous about Enoch's reputed status. Assigning divine authority to Jesus, as a teacher from Galilee, was, however, unthinkable. What was objectionable to the Jewish leaders was that they found it difficult to believe that Jesus of Nazareth could have divine authority, contravene the Sabbath, hold suspicious views on the Torah, associate with tax collectors and sinners, promise the destruction of the temple, and engage in a fierce critique of the religious leaders. Jesus also implicitly claimed to be the future judge of the religious leaders, which, they believed, violated Exodus 22:27.
When Jesus is charged with blasphemy before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64), it may not have been intended to be a capital trial, and hence the fact that the trial does not comply with the rules of the Mishnah is irrelevant. It may have been intended to be a preliminary hearing, at which the Jews were attempting to find grounds to hand Jesus over to the Romans. Indeed, in claiming to ride on the clouds of heaven, Jesus claims for himself something that was true only of God (Exodus 14:20; Numbers 10:34; Psalms 104:3; Isaiah 19:1), which would have been blasphemous to the Ancient Jews.
Blasphemy in Christianity
Christian theology may condemn blasphemy, as in the bible, Luke 12:10, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable. However, within the context of the reading, this may be more of a denying of the Holy Spirit (not believing, not accepting the Holy Spirit is blaspheming against it, since that is the unforgivable sin), rather then the more common blaspheming sin which is in [[Chrsitianity].
Yet in the simpler message of the time of Jesus, when Christian ideas relied upon the influence of natural authority against the then-secular religious power of the Second Jewish Temple period (positions exchanged in the centuries that followed), this admonishment may be interpreted as warning against an actual reaction from the Holy Spirit in the form of a curse that can irreparably harm a person (and thus be unforgivable, but not by dictate). This statement in effect establishes the importance of this aspect of the Godhead, rather than setting an arbitrary law.
A careful reading of the Gospel of Mark shows this: "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29).
Christian theology may condemn blasphemy, as in the Luke, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable (Luke 12:10).
Blasphemy in Islam
Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of Muhammad, of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an, or of any Biblical prophets. The Qu'ran also states that it is blasphemy to claim that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017). Speaking ill of God is also blasphemy. In Islam, blasphemy is considered a sin. The Qur'an says "He forgives all sins, except disbelieving in God [blasphemy]." In Islam, if a person dies while in blasphemy, they will not enter heaven, except if said person repented before death.
In Muslim countries, blasphemy is considered a very serious offense and may be punishable by death if charges are proven. British author Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, was seen by many Muslims to contain blasphemies against Islam, and Iranian clerical leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in 1989 calling for Rushdie's death. More recently, the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons were criticised in part on the basis that they were blasphemous against Muhammad. The Egyptian government under pressure by the parliament banned the film The Da Vinci Code, and is to confiscate the novel for containing blasphemy.
In Pakistan, Christians continue to bear the brunt of the country’s blasphemy laws. In March 2007, a Christian man was booked for allegedly tearing and setting ablaze pages of the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book. Qaisar Mehmood, the complainant, charged Amanat Masih, 45, a resident of village of Nabi Pur Virkan in the district of Sheikhupura, with desecrating and setting on fire pages of the Quran, as part of an occult practice to win over a lady named Shamim at the insistence of a Muslim man, Liaqat Ali.
The rule is: any belief, action, or saying which belittles Allah (God), his books, his messengers, his angels, his rites, the well-known practices of his religion (such as prayer), his rules, his promise (such as paradise), or his threat (such as hellfire) is blasphemy. Hence, the human being must use caution with the utmost effort to avoid blasphemy.
So it is clear that in Islam, blasphemy is a matter that must be studied well in order to avoid it at any cost, for the one who dies as a blasphemer will be sentenced to hellfire without end. Also, it should be noted that in Islam, it is not a condition for the one to be judged as a blasphemer that he must have liked or believed in the blasphemous saying, action, or belief. This is confirmed by the saying of Muhammad, "A person may utter a word he thinks harmless, which results in his falling the depth of seventy years into Hellfire."
This is opposed to Christianity, for example, in which teachings differ as to what constitutes blasphemy. The terms of blasphemy, as labeled by the Christians, is much less inclusive then that in Islamic Law.
About blasphemy and apostacy, the Qur'an says;
| “ | The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Surah Al-Maidah 5:33 | ” |
Blasphemy in other religions
Buddhism
Many religions present a set of dogma and then insist that people believe them, even when such dogmas appear strange or have been explained by science to be false or without basis. Buddhism has no place for such doctrines. It does not require blind faith but actually suggests its adherents to think, to question and to develop acceptance based on understanding.
Being self-confident, Buddhism opens itself to query and scrutiny. There is no concept of blasphemy in Buddhism. Questions on Buddhism are often answered with rationality, respect, and honesty. The religion claims that says sincere followers of other beliefs are also rewarded in the afterlife. Buddhism is not like a football team or a political party. One does not become a Buddhist for the purpose of condemning others. Buddhism teaches that what is done now determines what happens to us in the future. This is a natural law in accordance with scientific principles and applies to everyone regardless of their religious label.
Hindusim
Islam/Christianity offer one simplified set of morals and values contained in single book. Hinduism offers a rich variety of texts and encourages debate, which is better for a securely established culture that can devote time to the pursuit of knowledge.
Both Islam/Christianity regard human beings as far superior species on the planet, and believe that God made the rest of the world for human consumption. Hinduism and other Eastern religions believe humans are part of environment and put stress on respecting all creatures. According to Hinduism, no religion or holy book transcends reality; no prophet owns reality. Reality plays with people and their beliefs, caresses them for a while, and tosses them in a bin to send them in oblivion for centuries. The earlier people realize this, the better it is for their religion.
There is no word blasphemy in Hinduism. The concepts of "utmost freedom of thought and action" attracts many to Hinduism. Hinduism never forbids any one to question its fundamentals. Hinduism has never banished anyone, since he or she wrote a wrong scripture or did not observe a particular ritual. Mahathma Gandhi wrote, "even atheists can call themselves as Hindus." In fact, both the Charvaka and Nastika philosophies which existed during the Vedic period, rejected the existence of God and considered religion as an aberration.
Jainism
In Jainism, blasphemy is the teaching of the false; the hindrance of the true religion; the denegration of the saints, of the images of gods, and of the community, of the canon; and the rape of sacred objects, all of which cause the state of darsana-mohaniya-k (a disturbance of the knowledge of the religious truth inherent in one's natural disposition).
An example of the Jain legal view on blasphemy occurred in Mangalore, India, where the police arrested B. V. Seetharam. editor of Kannada, the evening daily newspaper of Karavali Ale, along with his wife, Rohini. They were taken to the Panambur police station for the "blasphemous reporting and personal abuses" against the spiritual leader of Jainism, Munishree Tarunsagar.
The arrest was done following complaints filed by Jain organizations against Seetharam. The organizations had alleged that the articles had hurt their religious sentiments. The complaint also alleged that several reports and articles on the visit of Tarunsagar and the Digambaras (followers of one of the two mani sects of Jainism), which were published in the newspaper, had hurt the Jain community.
Blasphemy laws
European initiatives
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg adopted on June 29, 2007 Recommendation 1805 (2007) on blasphemy, religious insults, and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion. This Recommendation set a number of guidelines for member states of the Council of Europe in view of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this area, there is also considerable case-law by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The United States of America
Some states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:
- Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:
- Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.
According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text.[1]. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland.[2] It is unclear from the statutes and notes when Maryland's blasphemy statute was last prosecuted.
The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838, as decided by the Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Kneeland. However, this was prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights to apply to the states and not just the federal government.
The United States Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson 1952 held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."
Australia
In the state of Victoria, Australia, legislation outlawing any "religious vilification" was introduced in 2004. This law, the Racial & Religious Tolerance Act, has caused chaos. A Christian Ministry called Catch the Fire was singled out for legal persecution by the Islamic Council of Victoria. The ministry's two pastors, Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, fought their case since it began in December 2004. In June 2005, they refused to acknowledge the court's order for them to apologize and pay a fine. Outside the court, Nalliah claimed he would not submit "freedom of speech to a law which is sharia law by stealth. We will not bow down to pressure, and if it means we go to prison we will go to prison."
Pakistan
Among Muslim-majority countries, Pakistan has the strictest anti-blasphemy laws. In 1982, President Zia ul-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code punishing "defiling the Holy Qur'an" with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet."
In 1990, the Federal Shari’ah Court ruled that the penalty should be a mandatory death sentence, with no right to reprieve or pardon. This is binding, but the government is yet to formally amend the law, which means that the provision for life sentence still formally exists, and is used by the government as a concession to critics of the death penalty. In 2004, the Pakistani parliament approved a law to reduce the scope of the blasphemy laws. The amendment to the law means that police officials will have to investigate accusations of blasphemy to ensure that they are well founded, before presenting criminal charges.
However, the law is used against political adversaries or personal enemies, by Muslim fundamentalists against Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs, or for personal revenge. Especially Ahmadi Muslims are victims of the blasphemy law. They claim to be Muslims themselves, but under the blasphemy law, they are not allowed to use Islamic vocabulary or rituals.
The Pakistani Catholic bishops' Justice and Peace Commission complained in July 2005 that since 1988, some 650 people had been falsely accused and arrested under the blasphemy law. Moreover, over the same period, some 20 people accused of the same offense had been killed. As of July 2005, 80 Christians were in prison accused of blasphemy.
Christians in Pakistan protested Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code as blasphemous, with support of Muslims as well. On June 3, 2006, Pakistan banned the film. Culture Minister Gulab Jamal said: "Islam teaches us to respect all the prophets of God Almighty and degradation of any prophet is tantamount to defamation of the rest."[1]
Israel
In Israel, blasphemy against the Jewish nation's religious beliefs is interpreted through state policy towards citizens and would-be citizens. Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that foreigners who convert to Judaism in Israel are eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return. However, it sidestepped the key issue of whether the eligibility extends to conversions officiated by non-Orthodox rabbis. The case has been closely watched by the Reform and Conservative movements, the two largest in the United States, which have been denied recognition in Israel. Currently, non-orthodox conversions are recognized only if they occur outside of Israel. Meanwhile, Catholic press reports complain that priests and nuns living in Israel and in the Occupied Territories, some of whom have been there for more than a decade, are facing a hard time because of the authorities’ refusal to renew their visas.
Indonesia
Indonesia is said to be "moderate," but the blasphemy laws allow a person to be jailed for up to five years. In July 2006, an eccentric leader, Lia Aminddin, a woman, of the Kingdom of Eden sect, was jailed for two years. This sect was neither Christian nor Muslim, and was based in Jakarta. Aminuddin had preached her beliefs with impunity for a decade, until she declared that she was the spirit of the Archangel Gabriel. Islamists from the Indonesian Council of Ulemas surrounded her compund in Jakarta for two days, in December 2005, until Aminuddin and 48 others were arrested and charged. The prosecution sought the five-year penalty against Aminuddin, and launched an appeal against her "lenient" sentence. Article 29, b, of Indonesia's constitution states: "The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief." Unless one offends Islam.
United Kingdom
Blasphemy laws in England have never been repealed. The last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott on December 9, 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labor.
In 1977, Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News was found guilty of blasphemous libel for publishing James Kirkup's poem "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name" which allegedly vilified Christ and his life (Whitehouse v. Lemon). Lemon was fined £500 and sentenced to a suspended sentence of nine months imprisonment. It had been "touch and go," said the judge, whether he would actually send Lemon to jail.
In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicised public repeat reading of the poem "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name" took place on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square and failed to lead to any prosecution.
The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843.
Saudi Arabia
In Saudi Arabia, the death sentence has been applied for apostasy, though in Saudi Arabia, the last known execution for apostasy happened in 1992. More generally, such cases are charged as blasphemy. In Saudi Arabia, blasphemy has been punished with sentences of decapitation or imprisonment for up to eight years. The latter sentence was imposed in 2002 on a man who had said he found the Qur'an "boring." On January 7, 2003, Hail Al Masri, a Yemeni fruit seller living in Jeddah was sentenced to death by decapitation. His "crime" had been to refuse his roommate's entreaties to engage in morning prayers. Masri had been sentenced to two years' jail and 600 lashes, but this had been overturned by a Jeddah court, which had imposed the death penalty.
Other nations
There has been a recent tendency in Western countries towards the repeal or reform of blasphemy laws, and these laws are only infrequently enforced where they exist. Blasphemy laws—nowadays often altered to include blasphemy regardless of religion—exist in several countries, such as in: Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the penal code); Denmark (Paragraph 140 of the penal code) (It was up to revision in 2004, but failed to gain majority, and has been discussed since, and especially after the Mohammed cartoons crisis); Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code. Unsuccessful attempts were made to rescind the law in 1914, 1917, 1965, 1970 and 1998); Germany (Article 166 of the penal code); Greece; Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland; Iceland; Italy;*The Netherlands (Article 147 of the penal code); New Zealand[Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961); Norway (section 142 of the the Norwegian Penal Code never applied); Spain (Article 525 of the penal code); and Switzerland (Article 261 of the penal code).
Notes
- ↑ Pakistan bans Da Vinci Code film, June 4, 2006.. news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved August 20, 2007.
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Heins, Majorie. Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars, New Press, 1998. ISBN 978-1565840485
- Levy, Leonard. Blasphemy: Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salmon Rushdie, University of North Carolina Press, 1995. ISBN 978-0807845158
- Levy, Leonard. Blasphemy in Massachusetts, Da Capo Press, 1973. ISBN 978-0306702211
- Marsh, Joss. Word Crimes: Blasphemy, Culture, and Literature in Nineteenth-Century England, University of Chicago Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0226506906
- Plate, S. Brent. Blasphemy: Art that Offends, Black Dog Publishing, 2006. ISBN 978-1904772536
- Villa-flores, Javier. Dangerous Speech: A Social History of Blasphemy in Colonial Mexico, University of Arizona Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0816525638
External links and references
- Maledicta: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression (ISSN US 0363-3659)
- [http://www.brentonpriestley.com/writing/blasphemy.htm Comprehensive academic study comparing
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
