Posts Tagged ‘ moral police ’

Who decides the fine line between absolute and relative freedom of expression?

Moving the discussion further on Pragmatics between moral police and one’s freedom of expression ,my friend Indyeah has a great post,a well thought and well put post on Freedom.. She makes her point clear- in the case of MF Hussain paintings and Rushdie’s Book

Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order, security of State, decency or morality.The government restricts these freedoms in the interest of the independence, sovereignty and integrity of India. In the interest of morality and public order, the government can also impose restrictions.

Agreed.I agree completely.. Then she refers to the case of pub attack ..

It is the equivalent of barging into an artist’s house ,his/her personal space ,tear a painting off the wall of his home ,claim that it offends and then proceed to beat up the artist. Now these men could have registered their protest by filing an FIR ,perhaps citing obscenity and god knows what else,(as others like them hounded Khushboo)but they infringed upon the personal freedom of these girls ,the moment they laid a hand on these girls.


I have no second opinion in all she said..But I have some doubts on how and who will define the boundaries..Afterall,we don’t live in an ideal utopian society where people behave well.. Sharing my comments on her space.

I agree with all  thoughts on putting restristion so that society moves forward in a good way.But what about work of Taslim,Lajja,and a book(forgot its name) based on inside stories of women abuse in Saudi kingdom .Both of these were banned,in the name of hurting sentiments of both nationalists and religious people.Now that both these books have lot of truth inside them,should they be banned,simply for the sake of satisfying my ego?? Now,who sets limits here? Secondly,when you talk about Sri RS,you said that it is fight against human rights,one’s persoanl space.

This is crazy discussion,but there is no such thing as absolute personal space.We don’t live in isolation,but move collectively in what we call society.Am i right to worng? Now that we live in a society, don’t we have the responsibility, like what you said -freedom with responsibility,so that we don’t misuse our personal freedom. As like the example you said about religion,the same logic holds true here too..Drunk people have no control over mind and body,and they make problems not only to themselves,but also to people around,don’t they? A drunk husband is excercising his freedom of expression,is he? He has the right to use his personal space,and as a human,he has the right to get drunk..But when he comes home and beats his wife,has his alchocolism affected another person’s personal space?We are not living in Utopia where one gets drunk and still ahve full control over mind and body.

Now we say ‘Drink in limits’..Who sets limits here?? You and me (i said so bcoz your thoughts are exactly mine)contradict each other in two instances-but you justify one as responsible expression,other as human right,but is there really a difference between both? Now you ask me what my stand is,lol,i don’t know..I am confused… I appreciate and i loved your have written exactly my thoughts..But as i said,there is some contradiction in our thoughts.. My head is burning and expelling fumes 😦

In no way am i against pubs or any sort of recreation..I am against stereotyping pubs as Bars where people come to drink alone and engae in immoral activities alone.. But the problem here is,as per a report in TOI,the legal age to go to a pub is 25(assuming that people grow mature by 25),but currently,60% of pub goers are below 25..Now one may argue that we have the freedom of right,ever since we are born into this world…But what should be done when minors go to pubs?Do they have the maturity to make choices,responsible choices? So now,who makes choices for them?When parents do it,obviously by preventing them from going to pubs,are they infringing kid’s personal space and human rights?? the more we talk of this,the more complicated it is,…

Many days back,we had a news on police raiding and arreesting many boys and girls from a luxury pub,i thik Shakti kapoor’s son was invloved,and later it was found that most of them were using drugs..Nevermind,but why didn’t anybody come out in support of those boys and girls for excercising their freedom of personal space and human right to enjoy..

We can see lot of contradictions around dear.For instance, the name barber in Billu barber is seemed offensive by some people ,and SRK has removed it from the title..Now tell me how justified is that..Shall i call barbers, hair-cutting specialist?or cutters? In my thought,the end point is what Charakan said, if we start setting limits,everbody will push their agendas into the system,and finally freedom will be in Guantanamo jail..

My thoughts aren’t organized..I am just thinking aloud..Do correct me if i am wrong..


Edited to add :

It is indeed hypocritical to say that protests against Danish cartoons are justified on the basis of ‘sentiments’ where as protest against Hussain’s cartoons is termed ‘right-wing extremism’..Both are the same.Period.


bottom line is the same as Charakn said -People are insecure about their faith and morality,so they want others to keep mouth shut,no matter how good or worse their beliefs are..Strange and sad that in most cases,we sing along their tunes…Can there be a change ?Can we stop from moral policing others,for our inferioirty complex sake?



Pragmatics between moral police and one’s freedom of expression


Thanks to Solilo for bringing my attention into this news,where women are religiously beating up a girl,in the name of a tattoo.

 A Pakistani national, who had come to pursue a course in production from Whistling Woods International Institute in Mumbai, was beaten up at a Malad mall last week for sporting a tattoo in Urdu on her back. The incident scared the girl so much that she left for Pakistan on Friday.

Some women suddenly approached her and assaulted her over the tattoo which read ‘Shukr Alham Du Lillah’, meaning ‘Thank you, God’. They slapped the girl several times before the mall management intervened.


This is a complex issue where people mix common sense with religious sentiments.[As is the same case when SRS mixed common sense with cultural sentiments].Neverthless,questions unanswered will promote further issues and breed more hate.I am trying to look into this,as how I feel it right,please feel free to disagree.


Firstly,my message to those women,who think that they are guardians of Islam-followed by 1.5 billion people..Please mind your own business and bother about your own fate,before you poke at somebody else’s nose .YOUR ‘RIGHT’ ,and ‘WRONG’ is just yours and nobody else’s.If you think that you have the right to trash people based on YOUR RIGHT,please go shut yourself in a cave and never come back..Instead,if you feel that your sentiments,may it be religious,cultural or policitcal,are hurt,talk to the concerned party.If they agree with YOUR RIGHT,be happy and go home,drink a pepsi.If they choose not to agree with YOUR RIGHT,go home tear a pillow and get rid of your frustration and drink a lassi and relax. Just in case you think that Allah has asked you to take role of HARAM POLICE,please know that we the people who understand the real spirit of islam are no longer shikhandis,who are impotent to act and react.No longer acan you delude us by quoting the infinite hadiths which have nothing to do with Islam.So,stop minding others business and if you are indeed worried about the girl’s fate of going to hell because she wore a tattoo,please have the liberty of going home and pray 2 rakat prayer for her .Let God decide it for her-you needn’t take his role.



Secondly,I would like to bring your attention into a more complex topic in muslim world,where people make anything and everything haram(forbidden) ..AS like in every community,muslim world too have a set of people who say ‘chi chi,this is haram’,’chi chi,that is haram’ ,’ chi chi,everything is haram’..They make music haram,they make painting haram,they make eye brow shaping haram,they make television haram,they are hell bent over moral policing people and hence the name ‘Haram police’.In my experience, regardless of what religion it is, you see the righteous become the wicked in their attempts to be more righteous.But among muslims,the issue is more complex,because everybody has a hadith to quote as to claim their stand.To beginners,hadiths are man-written oral narrations relating to words and deeds of Prophet.Hadiths were complied 200 years after Prophet’s death.Putting it simple,hadith is a saying ‘Prohet’s wife’s servant’s brother’s aunty’ said that she saw Phophet saying so”.Hadiths are classified as strong,weak and fabricated.Over years of reading,I have understood that whatever,be it the controversial topics in Islam,it is attributed to hadiths..For eg-stoning is not in Quran,but is there is a hadiths.Hanging apostates is not there in Quran,but in hadiths.and so it goes on.As a muslim,TO ME,Quran is the word of Allah and hadiths are narrations that help me to understand life during Prophet’s time-nothing more,nothing less.Allah says that Quran is complete and it is hard for me to accept that Prophet outsmarted Allah and added his own laws to the religion.Prophet’s duty was to deliver Quran to humans,nothing more,nothing less.So,when people tell me that ‘You have to act this way because it is so in hadtihs’,I fliter it out against the message in Quran.For eg,Quran says that there is no compulsion in religion,but these so called scholars tells you to kill people going out of Islam-what a joke..Quran says that the penalty of adultery is equal for both men and women, and involves symbolic lashing. Social pressure, i.e., public witnessing of the penalty, is the basic punishment (24:1-2) but everywhere we hear about stoning,which again is attributed to hadiths.Such is the complex integration of hadiths to Islamic world,and it will make lot of time to clear the mess.I am not against hadiths,but I am against using a petty narration to formulate a law as serious as life and death.


Ok,that said,now one can trace the anti-tattoo reference to hadiths .The bottomline is not the alter the creation of Allah as it is and not to hurt the body.But I find this logic weird,because the very same people say that piercing ears,as to use earring is not haram as it is a ‘need’ for women.What the hell,who told you that earrings are a need and everything else is not. Beatification of one’s body is one’s personal choice and if I prefer not to wear earrings but have tattoos, will that be fine,because  your need is not my need?Interstingly, everything they say is stupid,bcoz then haricuts would be haram,since you are altering naturally grown hair.Boxing would be haram because it involves harming the  body .The argument of ‘not changing Allahs’s creation’ is absurd..The verse So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright – the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah’s creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not – 30:30) is talking about not changing Quran which is Allah’s creation.I suggest and request people to read something before jumping into you think that by following some random cleric’s fatwa,you are pleasing God?I am sure God will ask you ‘Why did I give you some brain,I am going to punish you for not valuing my blessing’ .As per Islamic rulings,you haram police deserve to be punished

  • 042.040 The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.
  • 042.041 But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame.
  • 042.042 The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous.
  • 042.043  But indeed if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs.
  • 042.044 For any whom Allah leaves astray, there is no protector thereafter. And thou wilt see the Wrong-doers, when in sight of the Penalty, Say: “Is there any way (to effect) a return?”

I wonder why the police didn’t arrest these women for harming somebody.

Thirdly,personally,I dislike tattoos.Also,they are unhealthy and pose major mental strain when the love for tattoo disppaers the very next morning your lover becomes ‘ex’.But then again,its your choice and you are free to do as you wish,until and unless it infringes my freedom of choice.


Fourthly,what if she had tattooed ‘Allah is crap’ or ‘Muhammad is  a pedophile’..Well then again,I would feel bad but I would never waste my time on these people.If it really bothers me,I would spread awareness of the other side of what the tattoo says,instead of protesting violently on streets.This world is beautiful because of diverse people,and I don’t expect everybody to think like me or accept my version of ‘right’.So I would just move on,until and unless they infringe my freedom of expression.


Then again,it is not appropriate for people to do whatever they want..There is no such thing as absolute freedom of expression.Your freedom ends where mine starts.Yes,you can draw cartoons on Prophet’s sexual and blood thristy,you can draw nude pictures of Hindu gods,you can draw hot picture of virgin Mary with big boobies,you can make a painting on Christ inside urine (Piss Christ),you can keep trying to ban Swastika,you can ban anti-holocaust remarks,as you have the freedom to do so.But tell me where should I drown my freedom,for your sake?