A THOUGHT FOR NOW - WHAT WOULD ALLAH SAY ABOUT GOVERNOR AHOK PURNAMA BEING CHARGE WITH BLASPHEMY? THE END.

Furthermore, for god, or Allah to accept the position that humans cannot challenge things which have been written about or ascribed to him, would make him into an absolute dictator, which is not a good thing. It could also facilitate the empowerment of any zealot who wants to use the Qura'n to acquire religious and/or political power, by placing a literal or obscurantist interpretation on selective Surahs. Reassured in the knowledge that, in a state where blasphemy laws exist, the faithful would be reluctant to challenge and interrogate the Qur'an, for fear of being accused of blasphemy.

Governor Purnama is most probably worshipping the same god whom his Muslim compatriots are worshipping, so, how is it that he can be accused by Muslims of sinning against against that same god?

The problem, if their is one, is the tendency of humans to confuse or mix-up the concept and practise of 'religion' with the concept of 'god.'

God or Allah, for those who believe, is unlikely to be concerned with petty human considerations about 'blasphemy.' No man has ever heard of god or Allah displaying any displeasure about people wanting to interrogate and check the validity of anything which is written about him. Religion might be developed around the concept of god, but, while a theistic religion might need a god to claim some validity, god or the gods do not need any religion to prove their existence.

And so it is, that a just society should not have 'blasphemy laws', which makes it illegal and/or punishable for anybody to say of another person, 'I think you are using your religion for you personal interests.'  Or to say of this or that religious text, 'this makes no sense and I do not agree with it', or 'this is clearly unjust, and I do not going to observe it', or, 'I find it incredible that any god really exist, because I can see no scientific evidence of it, and therefore I do not believe there is any god.'

And it is on that basis, that I believe that God would have advised, if not instructed the court to set Mr Purnama free. Because, logically and on the basis of reasonableness, god could not have found any case for him to answer, or cause to punish him.

Now, that is what I believe a humanist god, if he existed, would most probably have done, but, as I have said, religions are about the acquisition and exercise of power over the masses by the religious and political elites and demagogues, and not about what god would have wanted or not wanted. Because, that is what no human can ever really know.

It is probably an affront that people should be declaring themselves to be affronted on behalf of their gods, when those gods either choose not to be so affronted, or to do anything about it.

In living your life, seek to protect yourself and your fellow humans, and avoid thinking that you need to protect the gods, by harming others, when it is the gods who should be doing the protection of you.