Analyzing Blasphemy: Expression vs Extremism

Concepts like Blasphemy do not belong in the 21st century. The case of Hindu man’s death in Bangladesh by religiously charged mob.

History and Idea of Blasphemy

The concept of blasphemy emerged in the medieval age in Europe, referring to any act or word of contempt or disrespect against God or religion. Blasphemy was as serious a crime as treason today, or perhaps even more so. From Socrates to Galileo to Salman Rushdie, many well-known scholars experienced the breeze of blasphemy accusations. The idea, however, is highly subjective. Otherwise, how ironical is it to note that Jesus Christ himself was tried and punished for blasphemy?

For centuries, churches kept redefining the term, but the core idea remained the same—disregard for God or religion. The same idea, when translated into today’s legal terms—though not as atrociously—becomes “hurting religious sentiments.” It is important to note that this parallel does not imply that the two terms are equal. On one hand, blasphemy historically led to the death penalty; whereas, the latter calls for comparatively milder punishments, deemed necessary to safeguard the sensitivity of religious beliefs in democratic societies.

Bangladesh – Hindu Man Set on Fire on Account of Blasphemy

From earlier eras, blasphemy has carried into the 21st century, remaining a common charge in nations ruled by religion. On December 18, a young Hindu man was killed and set ablaze by a mob following tensions during protests after Osman Hadi’s death. The victim, Dipu Chandra Das, was accused of blasphemy for reportedly “insulting the Prophet,” while the mob aggressively shouted Islamic slogans. A mob brutally killing in the name of blasphemy is itself disregarding its God. However, to those rallying in Bangladesh, such contradictions do not matter. Blasphemy becomes another tool to foster hatred.

Protect Expression, Prevent Extremism

In order to combat the mindset that leads to such acts of terror, the development of rationality and tolerance is essential. Regressive ideas of sacrilege must be torn out.

Numerous hoax cases on behalf of religious sentiments are often observed in India. Disagreement is not welcomed in religious discussions. People often confuse opinions with statements. As a society, we must learn to respect opinions, handle disagreements and not let hatred overpower tolerance.

Lastly, in law and justice, the victim’s statement holds more value than that of the offender. In a case of blasphemy, God is the victim. Hence, why not let the victim’s statement be recorded, while we protect the humanity under attack?