USA: Difficult interfaith discussion of blasphemy

“Our response to things we find obnoxious should be to educate,” he said. “Our responsibility is to show patience, self-restraint and peace at all cost.”

File photo: Imam Naseem Mahdi, Ntn'l V.P. Ahmadiyya Muslim Comunity

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Int'l Desk
Source/Credit: Buffalo News | Religion
By Henry L. Davis | March 14, 2011

An interfaith symposium on blasphemy would normally get little notice, but these are not normal times.

In the last few months, two Pakistani officials have been killed because of their stand against the country’s blasphemy law, which seeks the death penalty against anyone who speaks ill of Islam.

A controversial hearing in Congress began last week on the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community and that community’s response.

Generally speaking, blasphemy is an insult to a sacred entity. Different religions view blasphemy differently, and the symposium Sunday organized by the Buffalo chapter of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community sought to offer a summary of the concept as viewed by some of the major faiths.


No easy task. “People want to talk about blasphemy but are reluctant to do it in public,” said Dr. Nasir Khan, president of the chapter of Ahmadiyya, a sect of Islam that emphasizes defending the religion with the pen, not the sword.

Naseem Mahdi was the last speaker in the Millennium Airport Hotel, Cheektowaga but, perhaps, the most anticipated.

The national vice president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community recently accepted an invitation to appear at the House Committee on Homeland Security hearing.

“It’s a god-given opportunity to talk about our faith and loudly confirm our loyalty to our homeland, the United States,” said Mahdi, who has criticized radical Muslim clerics and mullahs as “hijacking” Islam.

He acknowledged that critics of the hearing who consider it stereotyping make a valid point but stressed that it also gives Muslims a chance to send a clear message about condemning terrorism.

“Most Muslims are a silent majority, and that bothers me,” he said. “We have to be vocal — no ifs, and or buts.”

As for blasphemy, Mahdi said his views represent those of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which believes that the concept is a matter of decency and not law or freedom of speech.

“Our response to things we find obnoxious should be to educate,” he said. “Our responsibility is to show patience, self-restraint and peace at all cost.”

Rabbi Allen H. Podet brought a Jewish perspective. From the Torah and the writings of rabbinic sages, Jewish tradition came to recognize the death penalty for blasphemy as legitimate only when an individual utters the name of God and two witnesses warned the person prior to the transgression, Podet said.

But even if this nearly impossible circumstance arises, he said, there is one more obstacle to a conviction for blasphemy. In Judaism, the correct pronunciation of God’s name has not been known since the time of the Romans, and that is why Jews refer to God as “Lord,” he said.

“You can’t blasphemy. You’re 2,000 years too late,” Podet said on a humorous note. “The best you can do is be a jerk.”

Dilip Sinha, a retired cancer researcher, offered a succinct summation of Hinduism’s view of blasphemy.

Simply put, he said, the religion has no concept of blasphemy, not even a word for it. Hinduism accepts everyone, even atheists, he said.

hdavis@buffnews.com



Read original post here: Difficult interfaith discussion of blasphemy