View source for Blasphemy

{{Short description|Act of insulting of religion}}
{{distinguish|Heresy}}
{{Redirect|Blasphemous|the video game|Blasphemous (video game){{!}}Blasphemous (video game)|5=Blasphemy (disambiguation)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2020}}
'''Blasphemy''' refers to an insult that shows contempt, disrespect or lack of [[Reverence (emotion)|reverence]] concerning a [[deity]], an object considered [[sacred]], or something that is considered [[Sanctity of life|inviolable]].<ref>{{Cite book|title = On blasphemy|last = Miriam Díez Bosch and Jordi Sànchez Torrents|publisher = Blanquerna Observatory on Media, Religion and Culture|year = 2015|isbn = 978-84-941193-3-0|location = Barcelona}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy|title= Blasphemy|publisher= Random House Dictionary|access-date= 12 January 2015|quote= Quote: impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.; the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.|archive-date= 4 March 2016|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160304125121/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy|url-status= live}}</ref><ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy Blasphemy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180923061905/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy |date=23 September 2018 }} Merriam Webster (July 2013); 1. great disrespect shown to God or to something holy<br />2. irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable</ref><ref>''Blasphemies'', in Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed,<br />1. profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine.<br />2. any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful</ref> Some religions, especially Abrahamic ones, regard blasphemy as a crime, including insulting the [[Islam]]ic prophet [[Muhammad]] in Islam, speaking the [[Names of God in Judaism|sacred name]] in Judaism,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Karesh |first1=Sara |last2=Hurvitz |first2=Mitchell |title=Encyclopedia of Judaism |date=2006 |publisher=Facts on File |location=United States  |quote=It is considered blasphemy to utter God's personal names...Interestingly, this prohibition has crept into the practice of writing God's name in English. Many Jews will choose to write "G-d" instead of "God" to avoid blasphemy. |page=180}}</ref> and blasphemy of God's [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] is an [[eternal sin]] in Christianity.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Concannon |first1=Cavan W. |title=Assembling Early Christianity: Trade, Networks, and the Letters of Dionysios of Corinth |date=2017 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=114 |quote=The ''Didache'' cites Mark 3:28-29 and implicitly defines blaspheming the holy spirit as testing or examining a prophet who is speaking in the spirit (11:7). This is the sin that cannot be forgiven, though other sins can be resolved through repentance. Epiphanius, in his discussion of the heretics he calls the Alogi, says they have committed the unforgivable sin. Because they reject the Gospel of John, which was inspired by the holy spirit, their teaching is therefore contrary to what the spirit has said and liable to the penalty imposed by Jesus' saying.}}</ref> It was also a crime under [[English law|English]] [[common law]], and it is still a crime under Italian law (Art. 724 del Codice Penale).<ref name="Harvard Law">{{cite web |title=Blasphemy and the Original Meaning of the First Amendment |date=December 10, 2021 |website=Harvard Law Review |url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/12/blasphemy-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-first-amendment/ |quote=Until well into the twentieth century, American law recognized blasphemy as proscribable speech. The blackletter rule was clear. Constitutional liberty entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not a right to commit blasphemy — the offense of “maliciously reviling God”, which encompassed “profane ridicule of Christ”. The English common law had punished blasphemy as a crime, while excluding “disputes between learned men upon particular controverted points” from the scope of criminal blasphemy. Looking to this precedent, nineteenth-century American appellate courts consistently upheld proscriptions on blasphemy, drawing a line between punishable blasphemy and protected religious speech.}}</ref>

In the early history of the Church, blasphemy "was considered to show active disrespect to [[God]] and to involve the use of profane cursing or mockery of his powers". In the medieval world, those who committed blasphemy were seen as needing discipline.<ref name="Nash2007"/> By the 17th century, several historically [[Christianity|Christian]] countries had [[Blasphemy laws|legislation against blasphemy]].<ref name="Nash2007">{{cite book |last1=Nash |first1=David |title=Blasphemy in the Christian World |date=2007 |publisher=Oxford University Press |pages=3–5}}</ref> Blasphemy was proscribed speech in the U.S. until well into the 20th century.<ref name="Harvard Law"/> Blasphemy laws were abolished in [[Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom|England and Wales]] in 2008, and in [[Freedom of religion in Ireland|Ireland in 2020]]. [[Scotland]] repealed its blasphemy laws in 2021. Many other countries have abolished blasphemy laws including [[Religion in Denmark|Denmark]], the [[Freedom of religion in the Netherlands|Netherlands]], [[Freedom of religion in Iceland|Iceland]], [[Freedom of religion in Norway|Norway]] and [[New Zealand]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill Information Note: Blasphemy |website=gov.scot |url=https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/factsheet/2020/04/hate-crime-bill-what-it-will-do/documents/hate-crime-bill-information-note-blasphemy/hate-crime-bill-information-note-blasphemy/govscot%253Adocument/Hate%252BCrime%252Band%252BPublic%252BOrder%252B%252528Scotland%252529%252BBill%252B-%252BInformation%252BNote%252B%252B-%252BBlasphemy%252B-%252BApril%252B2020.pdf |access-date=18 December 2022 |archive-date=18 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221218164141/https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/factsheet/2020/04/hate-crime-bill-what-it-will-do/documents/hate-crime-bill-information-note-blasphemy/hate-crime-bill-information-note-blasphemy/govscot%3Adocument/Hate%2BCrime%2Band%2BPublic%2BOrder%2B%2528Scotland%2529%2BBill%2B-%2BInformation%2BNote%2B%2B-%2BBlasphemy%2B-%2BApril%2B2020.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>  {{As of |2019}}, 40 percent of the world's countries have blasphemy laws on the books, including 18 countries in the [[Middle East]] and [[North Africa]], or 90% of countries in that region.<ref>[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/01/25/four-in-ten-countries-and-territories-worldwide-had-blasphemy-laws-in-2019-2/Four-in-ten countries and territories worldwide had blasphemy laws in 2019], Pew Research (25 January 2022)</ref><ref name=pewres>[http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/21/laws-penalizing-blasphemy-apostasy-and-defamation-of-religion-are-widespread/ Laws Penalizing Blasphemy, Apostasy and Defamation of Religion are Widespread] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131011231914/http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/21/laws-penalizing-blasphemy-apostasy-and-defamation-of-religion-are-widespread/ |date=11 October 2013 }} Pew Research (21 November 2012)</ref><ref name=wsj>[https://www.wsj.com/articles/blasphemy-divide-insults-to-religion-remain-a-capital-crime-in-muslim-lands-1420673864 Blasphemy Divide: Insults to Religion Remain a Capital Crime in Muslim Lands] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230611021726/https://www.wsj.com/articles/blasphemy-divide-insults-to-religion-remain-a-capital-crime-in-muslim-lands-1420673864 |date=11 June 2023 }} ''The Wall Street Journal'' (8 January 2015)</ref>

==Etymology==
{{Anchor|History}}

The word ''{{linktext|blasphemy}}'' came via [[Middle English]] {{lang|enm|blasfemen}} and [[Old French]] {{lang|fro|blasfemer}} and [[Late Latin]] {{lang|la|{{linktext|blasphemare}}}} from [[Greek language|Greek]] {{linktext|βλασφημέω}}, from βλασ, "injure" and φήμη, "utterance, talk, speech". From ''blasphemare'' also came Old French {{lang|fro|blasmer}}, from which the English word ''[[blame]]'' came. Blasphemy: 'from Gk. blasphemia "a speaking ill, impious speech, [[slander]]," from blasphemein "to speak evil of."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=blasphemy|title=Online Etymology Dictionary – Blasphemy|publisher=Etymonline.com|access-date=10 November 2011|archive-date=14 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170414081938/http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=blasphemy|url-status=live}}</ref> "In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10 [[Septuagint|LXX]]; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.)."<ref>(from Easton's Bible Dictionary) {{bibleverse|Romans|2:24|9}} – {{bibleverse|Revelation.13:1, 6; Rev.16:9, 11, 21|multi=yes}} – {{bibleverse|1Kings.21:10; Acts.13:45; Acts.18:6|multi=yes}}</ref>

==History==

===Middle Ages===
[[Heresy]] received more attention than blasphemy throughout the [[Middle Ages]] because it was considered a more serious threat to [[Orthodoxy]],<ref>cf. Thomas Aquinas' ''Summa Theologiae''. ST II-II q10a3, q11a3, q12. Q11A3: "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."</ref> while blasphemy was mostly seen as irreverent remarks made by persons who may have been drunk or diverged from good standards of conduct in isolated incidents of misbehavior. When the fundamental understanding of the [[sacred]] became more contentious during the [[Reformation]], blasphemy started to be regarded as similar to heresy.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Nash |first1=David |title=Blasphemy in the Christian World |date=2007 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=4}}</ref>

The intellectual culture of the early English Enlightenment embraced ironic or scoffing tones in contradistinction to the idea of sacredness in revealed religion. The characterization of "scoffing" as blasphemy was defined as [[profanity|profaning]] the Scripture by irreverent "Buffoonery and Banter". From at least the 18th century on, the clergy of the [[Church of England]] justified blasphemy prosecutions by distinguishing "sober reasoning" from mockery and scoffing. Religious doctrine could be discussed "in a calm, decent and serious way" (in the words of [[Edmund Gibson|Bishop Gibson]]) but mockery and scoffing, they said, were appeals to sentiment, not to reason.<ref name=Frances/>

===Common law===
It was a [[common law]] crime according to [[William Blackstone]]'s ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'':

<blockquote>Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering conteumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land".</blockquote>

In 1636, the [[Puritan]]-controlled [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]] made blasphemy – defined as "a cursing of God by atheism, or the like" – punishable by death.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Williams Levy |first1=Leonard |title=Blasphemy: Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie |date=1995 |publisher=University of North Carolina Press Books |page=242}}</ref> The last person hanged for blasphemy in Great Britain was [[Thomas Aikenhead]] aged 20, in [[Scotland]] in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.<ref name=truth>{{cite web|url=http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html |title=Thomas Aikenhead |publisher=5.uua.org |access-date=10 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111001011446/http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html |archive-date=1 October 2011}}</ref>

In the United States, blasphemy was recognized as proscribed speech well into the 20th-century.<ref name="Harvard Law"/><ref>{{cite book |title=Church-State Issues in America Today (3 volumes) |date=2007 |publisher=Bloomsbury |isbn=9781573567541 |page=18}}</ref> The Constitution entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not to commit blasphemy, with the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]'' stating, "The English common law had punished blasphemy as a crime, while excluding "disputes between learned men upon particular controverted points" from the scope of criminal blasphemy. Looking to this precedent, 19th-century American appellate courts consistently upheld proscriptions on blasphemy, drawing a line between punishable blasphemy and protected religious speech."<ref name="Harvard Law"/>

The common law offences of blasphemy and [[blasphemous libel]] were repealed in England & Wales by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]]. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this meant that promoting atheism could be prosecuted.<ref>Owen Chadwick, ''The Victorian Church: Vol 1 1829–1859'' (1966) pp 487–489.</ref> The last successfully prosecuted case was ''[[Whitehouse v. Lemon]]'' (1976) where the court repeated what had by then become a textbook standard for [[Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom|blasphemy law cases in the UK]]:<ref name=Frances>{{cite book |last1=Knight |first1=Frances |title=Religion, Identity and Conflict in Britain |date=2016 |publisher=Routledge}}</ref>

<blockquote>It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not as to the substance of the doctrines themselves.</blockquote>

The common law offense of blasphemy was abolished in Scotland via the [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021]].<ref>{{Cite web |date= |title=Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2024 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/16 |access-date=3 April 2024 |website=gov.uk |archive-date=5 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240405141956/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/16 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==By religion==

===Christianity===
{{anchor|Blasphemy in Christianity}}

====Biblical texts====
[[Christian theology]] condemns blasphemy. "[[Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain]]", one of the [[Ten Commandments]], forbids blasphemy, which Christians regard as "an affront to God's holiness".<ref name="Sherwood2021">{{cite book |last1=Sherwood |first1=Yvonne |title=Blasphemy: A Very Short Introduction |date=26 August 2021 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-251819-4 |page=50 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bright2005">{{cite book |author1=[[Bill Bright]] |title=The Joy of Faithful Obedience |date=2005 |publisher=Cook Communications |isbn=978-0-7814-4252-7 |page=52 |language=English}}</ref> 

Leviticus 24:16 states that "anyone who blasphemes the name of Yahweh will be put to death".<ref name="Netton1996">{{cite book |last1=Netton |first1=Ian Richard |title=Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer |date=1996 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-7007-0325-8 |page=2 |language=en}}</ref> 

In [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] [[s:Bible (World English)/Mark#3:29|3:29]], blaspheming the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] is spoken of as unforgivable—an [[eternal sin]].<ref name="Saunders2021">{{cite book |last1=Saunders |first1=Craig D. |title=A Mediator in Matthew: An Analysis of the Son of Man's Function in the First Gospel |date=1 March 2021 |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |isbn=978-1-5326-9704-3 |page=77 |language=en}}</ref>

====Church history====

In the early history of the Church, blasphemy "was considered to show active disrespect to God and to involve the use of profane cursing or mockery of his powers".<ref name="Nash2007"/>

In ''[[The Whole Duty of Man]]'', sometimes attributed to [[Richard Allestree]] or [[John Fell (bishop)|John Fell]], blasphemy is described as "speaking any evil Thing of God", and as "the highest Degree whereof is cursing him; or if we do not speak it with our Mouths, yet if we do it in our Hearts, by thinking any unworthy Thing of him, it is look'd on by God, who sees the Heart, as the vilest Dishonour."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Allestree |first1=Richard |title=The whole duty of man, laid down in a plain and familiar way |url=https://archive.org/details/wholedutyofmanla00alle |date=1658}}</ref>

* [[Thomas Aquinas]] says that "[if] we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one's neighbor, than blasphemy does to God".<ref>Thomas Aquinas: [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3013.htm#article3 ''Summa Theologica''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091029233541/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3013.htm#article3 |date=29 October 2009 }} 2:2, q. 13.</ref>
* The ''[[Book of Concord]]'' calls blasphemy "the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed".<ref>[http://www.bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php ''The Book of Concord''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090315051445/http://bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php |date=15 March 2009 }} ''The Large Catechism,'' §55.</ref>
* The ''[[Baptist Confession of Faith]]'' says: "Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God…is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. …For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns".<ref>[http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part23 The Baptist Confession of Faith] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407070838/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm |date= 7 April 2010 }} Ch. 23, §2–3.</ref>
* ''The [[Heidelberg Catechism]]'' answers question 100 about blasphemy by stating that "no sin is greater or provokes God's wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name".<ref>[http://www.wts.edu/resources/heidelberg.html The Heidelberg Catechism] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090613033525/http://www.wts.edu/resources/heidelberg.html |date=13 June 2009 }} Q. 100.</ref>
* The ''[[Westminster Confession of Faith|Westminster Larger Catechism]]'' explains that "The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane...mentioning...by blasphemy...to profane jests, ...vain janglings, ...to charms or sinful lusts and practices".<ref>[http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/WLC_091-150.html Westminster Larger Catechism] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120911195148/http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/WLC_091-150.html |date=11 September 2012 }} Q. 113.</ref>
* [[Jean Calvin|Calvin]] found it intolerable "when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the [[wikt:ebullition|ebullition]] of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked".<ref>Jean Calvin: ''[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom06.ii.xvii.html Harmony of the Law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091207124637/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom06.ii.xvii.html |date=7 December 2009 }}'' vol. 4. Lev. 24:10.</ref>

====Catholic prayers and reparations for blasphemy====

In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as [[Acts of Reparation]] for blasphemy.<ref>[http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/qt/Reparation_HN.htm Act of Reparation for Blasphemies Uttered Against the Holy Name, Righting Wrongs Through Prayer] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080118184246/http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/qt/Reparation_HN.htm |date=18 January 2008 }} By Scott P. Richert, About.com</ref> For instance, [[The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer)]] first introduced by Sister [[Marie of St Peter]] in 1844 is recited "''in a spirit of reparation for blasphemy''". This devotion (started by Sister Marie and then promoted by the Venerable [[Leo Dupont]]) was approved by Pope [[Leo XIII]] in 1885.<ref>Dorothy Scallan. The Holy Man of Tours. (1990) {{ISBN|0-89555-390-2}}</ref> The [[Raccolta]]book includes a number of such prayers.<ref>Joseph P. Christopher et al., 2003 ''The Raccolta'', St Athanasius Press {{ISBN|978-0-9706526-6-9}}</ref> The [[Five First Saturdays]] devotions are done with the intention in the heart of making reparation to the Blessed Mother for blasphemies against her, her name and her holy initiatives.

The [[Holy See]] has specific "Pontifical organizations" for the purpose of the reparation of blasphemy through [[Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ]], e.g. the ''Pontifical Congregation of the [[Benedictine Sisters of the Reparation of the Holy Face]].''<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html Letter for 50th anniversary of the Benedictine Sisters of Reparation of the Holy Face, 2000] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080502234831/https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html |date=2 May 2008 }} Vatican archives</ref>

====Disputation of Paris====

During the [[Middle Ages]] a series of debates on [[Judaism]] were staged by the [[Catholic Church]], including the [[Disputation of Paris]] (1240), the [[Disputation of Barcelona]] (1263), and [[Disputation of Tortosa]] (1413–14), and during those disputations, Jewish converts to Christianity, such as [[Nicholas Donin]] (in Paris) and [[Pablo Christiani]] (in Barcelona) claimed the [[Talmud]] contained insulting references to Jesus.<ref>Carroll, James, Constantine's sword: the church and the Jews : a history, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002</ref><ref>Seidman, Naomi, Faithful renderings: Jewish-Christian difference and the politics of translation, University of Chicago Press, 2006 p. 137</ref><ref>Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, Judaism and other faiths, Palgrave Macmillan, 1994, p. 48</ref>

The [[Disputation of Paris]], also known as the Trial of the Talmud, took place in 1240 at the court of the reigning king of France, [[Louis IX of France|Louis IX]] (St. Louis). It followed the work of [[Nicholas Donin]], a Jewish convert to [[Christianity]], who translated the [[Talmud]] and pressed 35 charges against it to [[Pope Gregory IX]] by quoting a series of alleged blasphemous passages about [[Jesus]], [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]] or Christianity.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rZGx-bS3vcgC&pg=PA137|title=Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation|first=Naomi|last=Seidman|date=2010|publisher=University of Chicago Press|via=Google Books|pages=136–138|isbn=978-0-226-74507-7 }}</ref> Four [[rabbis]] defended the Talmud against Donin's accusations. A commission of Christian theologians condemned the Talmud to be burned and on 17 June 1244, twenty-four carriage loads of Jewish religious manuscripts were [[Book burning|set on fire]] in the streets of Paris.<ref>{{cite book|title=The history of the Talmud, from the time of its formation, about 200 B.C.|first=Michael Levi|last=Rodkinson|pages= 66–75|year= 1918|publisher=Talmud Society}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages|url=https://archive.org/details/judaismontrialje00macc|url-access=registration|first=Hyam |last=Maccoby|year= 1982|publisher=Associated University Presses|isbn=978-0-8386-3053-2}}</ref> The translation of the Talmud from [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] to non-Jewish languages stripped Jewish discourse from its covering, something that was resented by Jews as a profound violation.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=rZGx-bS3vcgC&dq=disputation+of+paris&pg=PA137 Naomi Seidman, ''Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation'', pp. 136–138]</ref>

Between 1239 and 1775, the Roman Catholic Church at various times either forced the censoring of parts of the Talmud that it considered theologically problematic or the destruction of copies of the Talmud.<ref name="expunged">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bunHURgi7FcC&q=talmud+censorship&pg=PA110| title = Encyclopedia of Censorship |author=Jonathon Green |author2=Nicholas J. Karolides|publisher = Infobase Publishing| page = 110 |year = 2009| isbn = 978-1-4381-1001-1| access-date= 13 February 2014}}</ref> During the inquisition, sects deemed heretical such as the [[Waldensians]] were also charged with blasphemy.<ref name="Napier 2017 p. 60">{{cite book | last=Napier | first=G. | title=Maleficium: Witchcraft and Witch Hunting in the West | publisher=Amberley Publishing | year=2017 | isbn=978-1-4456-6511-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H2AuDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT60 | access-date=2023-05-09 | page=60}}</ref>

===Islam===

[[File:Brooklyn Museum - The Execution of Mansur Hallaj From the Warren Hastings Album.jpg|thumb|Sufi teacher [[Mansur Al-Hallaj]] was executed in Baghdad amid political intrigue and charges of blasphemy in 922.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Avery|first1=Kenneth|title=Psychology of Early Sufi Sama: Listening and Altered States|date=2004|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-415-31106-9|page=3}}</ref>]]
{{Main|Islam and blasphemy}}

====Punishment and definition====
{{anchor | Punishment in Islam }}

Blasphemy in [[Islam]] is impious utterance or action concerning [[God in Islam|God]], [[Muhammad in Islam|Muhammad]] or anything considered sacred in Islam.<ref>"[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy Blasphemy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304125121/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy |date=4 March 2016 }}" at dictionary.com</ref><ref name="Wiederhold, Lutz 1997">Wiederhold, Lutz. "Blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad and his companions (sabb al-rasul, sabb al-sahabah): The introduction of the topic into shafi'i legal literature and its relevance for legal practice under Mamluk rule". ''Journal of semitic studies'' '''42'''.1 (1997): 39–70.</ref> The [[Quran]] admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy.<ref name="SaeedSaeed2004">{{Cite book |last1 = Saeed |first1 = Abdullah |last2 = Saeed |first2= Hassan |title = Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam |publisher = Ashgate Publishing Company |year = 2004 |location = Burlington VT |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sjQKAQAAMAAJ&q=Freedom+of+Religion,+Apostasy+and+Islam |isbn = 978-0-7546-3083-8|pages=38–39}}</ref> The [[hadith]]s, which are another source of [[Sharia]], suggest various punishments for blasphemy, which may include [[Capital and corporal punishment in Islam|death]].<ref name="SaeedSaeed2004"/><ref>Siraj Khan. ''Blasphemy against the Prophet, in Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture'' (ed: Coeli Fitzpatrick PhD, Adam Hani Walker). {{ISBN|978-1-61069-177-2}}, pp. 59–67.</ref> However, it has been argued that the death penalty applies only to cases where there is [[Treason#Muslim countries|treason]] involved that may seriously harm the [[Muslim]] community, especially during times of war.<ref>{{cite book|author=Taha Jabir Alalwani|url=http://iiit.org/iiitftp/publications/Bibs/Books-in-Brief%20Apostasy%20in%20Islam%20A%20Historical%20and%20Scriptural%20Analysis.pdf|title=Apostasy in Islam: a Historical and Scriptural Analysis|location=Herndon, VA|publisher=International Institute of Islamic Thought|year=2012|isbn=978-1-56564-585-1|type=Archived copy |access-date=2015-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150219032457/http://iiit.org/iiitftp/publications/Bibs/Books-in-Brief%20Apostasy%20in%20Islam%20A%20Historical%20and%20Scriptural%20Analysis.pdf |archive-date=19 February 2015}}</ref> Different traditional [[Madhhab|schools of jurisprudence]] prescribe different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether the blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, a man or a woman.<ref name="SaeedSaeed2004"/> In the modern [[Muslim world]], the laws pertaining to blasphemy [[Blasphemy law|vary by country]], and some countries prescribe punishments consisting of fines, imprisonment, [[Zanjeer zani|flogging]], [[hanging]], or [[Beheading in Islam|beheading]].<ref name=psns>P Smith (2003). "Speak No Evil: Apostasy, Blasphemy and Heresy in Malaysian Syariah Law". ''UC Davis Journal Int'l Law & Policy''. 10, pp. 357–373.
* N Swazo (2014). "The Case of Hamza Kashgari: Examining Apostasy, Heresy, and Blasphemy Under Sharia". ''The Review of Faith & International Affairs'' '''12'''(4). pp.&nbsp;16–26.</ref> Blasphemy laws were rarely enforced in pre-modern Islamic societies, but in the modern era some states and radical groups have used charges of blasphemy in an effort to burnish their religious credentials and gain popular support at the expense of liberal Muslim intellectuals and religious minorities.<ref name=failed3>{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Islam|title=Blasphemy|editor= Juan Eduardo Campo|publisher=Infobase Publishing|year=2009}}</ref> In recent years, accusations of blasphemy against Islam have sparked international controversies and played part in incidents of mob violence and assassinations of prominent figures.

====Failed OIC anti-blasphemy campaign at UN====
{{anchor |  UN  | IOC campaign | IOC UN campaign | Islamic Cooperation's UN campaign }}
{{Main|Blasphemy and the United Nations}}

The campaign for worldwide criminal penalties for the "defamation of religions" had been spearheaded by [[Organisation of Islamic Cooperation]] (OIC) on behalf of the United Nations' large Muslim bloc. The campaign ended in 2011 when the proposal was withdrawn in Geneva, in the Human Rights Council because of lack of support, marking an end to the effort to establish worldwide blasphemy strictures along the lines of those in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This resolution had passed every year since 1999, in the United Nations, with declining number of "yes" votes with each successive year.<ref name=failed1>[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/263450/anti-blasphemy-measure-laid-rest-nina-shea An Anti-Blasphemy Measure Laid to Rest] Nina Shea, National Review (31 March 2011)</ref> In the early 21st century, blasphemy became an issue in the [[United Nations]] (UN). The United Nations passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the "defamation of religions".<ref>U.N. Resolutions:
* [http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/60/150&Lang=E A/RES/60/150] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160129162453/http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/60/150&Lang=E |date=29 January 2016 }}
* [http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/60/PV.64&Lang=E Vote on 16 December 2005 (A/60/PV.64)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150420090620/http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/60/PV.64&Lang=E |date=20 April 2015 }}</ref> However, in July 2011, the [[UN Human Rights Committee]] (UNHRC) released a 52-paragraph statement which affirmed the freedom of speech and rejected the laws banning "display of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system'.<ref name=failed2>[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf General Comment 34] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110626065955/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf |date=26 June 2011 }}</ref>

====Depictions of Muhammad====
{{see|Depictions of Muhammad}}

When the Danish newspaper [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy|''Jyllands-Posten'' decided to publish cartoons of Muhammad]], its editor-in-chief wrote an editorial that the newspaper was publishing the cartoons because Muslims had to get over their "sickly oversensitivity". Another editor looked upon it as a cultural initiation: "By making fun of people we're also including them in our society. It's not always easy for those concerned, but that the price they're got to pay".<ref>
Laborde C. The Danish Cartoon Controversy and the Challenges of Multicultural Politics: A Discussion of The Cartoons That Shook the World. Perspectives on Politics. 2011;9(3):603-605. doi:10.1017/S1537592711002817</ref> Editors expressed concern that Danish comedians, artists and so on were self-censoring because they were afraid of a violent response from Muslims. 

The global protests that erupted in February 2006 shocked the artists who submitted cartoons. After receiving a bomb threat one cartoonist was angry that Muslims fleeing persecution in their own countries would "want the laws they have fled" to be enforced in Denmark. The editors stood their ground: "Everyone had to accept being subject to satire."<ref name=Klausen>{{cite book |last=Klausen |first=Jytte |title=The Cartoons That Shook the World |publisher=Yale University Press |date=2009}}</ref>

[[Al Qaeda]] claimed responsibility for a car bombing at the Danish embassy in [[Islamabad, Pakistan]] in June 2008 which they said was revenge for the "insulting drawings".<ref name=Klausen/>

After the [[Charlie Hebdo attack]] in 2015 ''[[Je Suis Charlie]]'' became a rallying cry for secular, free speech advocates. [[Emmanuel Todd]] was very skeptical and critical of the "right to blasphemy" narrative. Skeptics thought it amounted to little more than ridicule of a marginalized group. Scholars rebutting Todd's study have found that many of the protestors were liberal, tolerant people who did not have Islamophobic or xenophobic views. For many of the ''Je Suis Charlie'' protestors the sentiment of the protest was simply: it is not ok to kill someone because they have offended you.<ref>{{cite book |title=After Charlie Hebdo: Terror, Racism and Free Speech |publisher=Zed Books |date=2017 |page=53-9}}</ref>

===Judaism===
{{See also|List of capital crimes in the Torah}}
[[File:Schnorr von Carolsfeld Bibel in Bildern 1860 102.png|thumb|Nathan confronts [[David]] over his sex scandal with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, saying "by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme" ([[:s:Bible (King James)/2 Samuel#Chapter 12|2 Samuel 12]]:14).]]

In [[Leviticus 24|Leviticus 24:16]], the punishment for blasphemy is death. In [[Halakha|Jewish law]], the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the [[Tetragrammaton|name of the Lord]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3354-blasphemy|title=Blasphemy|encyclopedia=JewishEncyclopedia.com|access-date=1 March 2015|archive-date=10 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910144739/http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3354-blasphemy|url-status=live}}</ref> Leviticus 24:16 states that, "anyone who blasphemes the name of Yahweh will be put to death."<ref name="Netton1996"/>

The [[Seven Laws of Noah]], which Judaism sees as applicable to all people, prohibits blasphemy.<ref name="Jewishvirtuallibrary.org">{{cite web|url=https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Seven_Noahide_Laws.html|title=The Seven Noachide Laws|publisher=JewishVirtualLibrary.org|access-date=8 November 2014|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225144623/https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-seven-noachide-laws|url-status=live}}</ref>

In one of the texts of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], called the [[Damascus Document]], violence against non-Jews (also called [[Gentiles]]) is prohibited except in cases where it is sanctioned by a Jewish governing authority, "so that they will not blaspheme".<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia| publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 978-0-19-508450-4| title = Gentiles –. Oxford Reference| encyclopedia = Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls| year = 2000| access-date = 2017-05-29| url = http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195084504.001.0001/acref-9780195084504-e-183| archive-date = 21 October 2017| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171021163545/http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195084504.001.0001/acref-9780195084504-e-183| url-status = live}}{{subscription required|via=[[OUP]]}}</ref>

=== Buddhism ===

[[Buddhism]] has no concept of blasphemy. In contrast, in [[West Asia]], the birthplace of [[Abrahamic religions]] (namely [[Islam and blasphemy#Death|Islam]], [[Judaism]], and [[#Punishment in Christianity|Christianity]]), there was no room for such tolerance and respect for dissent where heretics and blasphemers had to pay with their lives.

Insulting Buddhism is a punishable offence in some Buddhist majority counties like Sri Lanka and Myanmar. In 2015 a man from New Zealand was sentenced to prison for depicting a picture of Buddha with headphones.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.dw.com/en/myanmar-court-jails-three-over-insult-to-buddhism/a-18320079 | title=Three jailed for insult to Buddha – DW – 03/17/2015 | website=[[Deutsche Welle]] | access-date=19 August 2023 | archive-date=19 August 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230819191955/https://www.dw.com/en/myanmar-court-jails-three-over-insult-to-buddhism/a-18320079 | url-status=live }}</ref> Similarly in 2020, [[Shakthika Sathkumara]], a Sri Lankan author, was sentenced 10 years in prison for insulting Buddhism.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5671/insulting-the-buddha | title=Insulting the Buddha | date=13 August 2020 | access-date=19 August 2023 | archive-date=19 August 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230819191956/https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5671/insulting-the-buddha | url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Sikhism ===

Blasphemy is taken harshly by Sikhs. It is called “''beadbi''” by Sikhs. In October, 2021, a [[Nihang|Nihang Singh]] killed a man for ''beadbi'' of the [[Sarbloh Granth]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last1=Sethi |first1=Chitleen K. |last2=ThePrint |date=2021-12-19 |title=What is 'beadbi' or sacrilege in Sikhism, which sees Guru Granth Sahib as living Guru |url=https://theprint.in/india/what-is-beadbi-or-sacrilege-in-sikhism-which-sees-guru-granth-sahib-as-living-guru/784089/ |access-date=2023-07-06 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US |archive-date=19 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230519180332/https://theprint.in/india/what-is-beadbi-or-sacrilege-in-sikhism-which-sees-guru-granth-sahib-as-living-guru/784089/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In December, 2021, a man was beaten to death at the [[Golden Temple]] for committing blasphemy.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mehmood |first=Asif |date=2021-12-18 |title=Hindu man beaten to death at Golden Temple in Amritsar |url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/2334545/hindu-man-beaten-to-death-at-golden-temple-in-amritsar?amp=1 |access-date=2023-07-06 |website=The Express Tribune |archive-date=8 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230708055236/https://tribune.com.pk/story/2334545/hindu-man-beaten-to-death-at-golden-temple-in-amritsar?amp=1 |url-status=live }}</ref> Such punishments are justified with orthodox Sikhs saying, “instant justice” is deserving for ''beadbi'' which is the “ultimate act of crime”.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Taskin |first=Bismee |date=2021-10-15 |title='He was running with a Sikh holy book': The 'crime' for which Sikh man was lynched & hacked |url=https://theprint.in/india/he-was-running-with-a-sikh-holy-book-the-crime-for-which-sikh-man-was-lynched-hacked/751375/ |access-date=2023-07-06 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":0" />

== Backlash against anti-blasphemy laws ==
{{anchor | Backlash | Opposition | Rejections }}

=== Affirmation of Freedom of Speech (FOS) ===
{{anchor | FOS | Freedom | Speech | Freedom of Speech  | Freedom of speech }}

Multilateral global institutes, such as the [[Council of Europe]] and UN, have rejected the imposition of ''"anti-blasphemy laws"'' (ABL) and have affirmed the [[freedom of speech]].<ref name=aff1/><ref name=failed2/>

==== The Council of Europe's rejection of ABL and affirmation of FOS ====
{{anchor | EU }}

The [[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]], after deliberating on the issue of blasphemy law passed the resolution that blasphemy should not be a criminal offence,<ref name=aff1>{{cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17569&lang=en|title=PACE - Recommendation 1805 (2007) - Blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion|website=assembly.coe.int|access-date=5 August 2021|archive-date=27 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170227175448/http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17569&lang=en|url-status=live}}</ref> which was adopted on 29 June 2007 in the ''"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]].

==== UN's rejection of ABL and affirmation of FOS ====
{{anchor | UN }}
{{ main | Defamation of religion and the United Nations }}

After OIC's (''Organisation of Islamic Cooperation'') campaign at UN (United Nations) seeking impose of punishment for "defamation of religions" was withdrawn due to consistently dwindling support for their campaign,<ref name=failed1/> the [[UN Human Rights Committee]] (UNHRC), in July 2011, released a 52-paragraph statement which affirmed the freedom of speech and rejected the laws banning "display of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system'. UNHRC's ''"General Comment 34 - Paragraph 48"'' on the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR) 1976, concerning freedoms of opinion and expression states:<ref name=failed2/>
{{blockquote|Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.<ref name=failed4>[https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf#page=12 General Comment 34, p. 12] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180903023023/https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf#page=12 |date=3 September 2018 }}.</ref>}}

=== International Blasphemy Day ===
{{anchor | BD | IBD | Blasphemy Day | International Blasphemy Day | International blasphemy day |  Blasphemy day }}

International [[Blasphemy Day]], observed annually on September 30, encourages individuals and groups to openly express [[criticism of religion]] and [[blasphemy law]]s. It was founded in 2009 by the [[Center for Inquiry]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/penn_jillette_celebrates_blasphemy_day/ |title=Penn Jillette Celebrates Blasphemy Day in "Penn Says" |publisher=Center for Inquiry |date=2009-09-29 |access-date=2013-09-30 |archive-date=6 October 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006073341/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/penn_jillette_celebrates_blasphemy_day/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A student contacted the Center for Inquiry in [[Amherst, New York|Amherst]], [[New York (state)|New York]] to present the idea, which CFI then supported. Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, said, regarding Blasphemy Day, "[W]e think religious beliefs should be subject to examination and criticism just as political beliefs are, but we have a taboo on religion", in an interview with [[CNN]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/09/30/first.blasphemy.day/|title=Taking aim at God on 'Blasphemy Day'|work=CNN.com|date=30 September 2009|first=Moni|last=Basu|archive-date=4 September 2014|access-date=19 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140904103358/http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/09/30/first.blasphemy.day/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Events worldwide on the first annual Blasphemy Day in 2009 included an art exhibit in [[Washington, D.C.]], and a [[free speech]] festival in [[Los Angeles]].<ref name=USAT>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-02-blasphemy-day_N.htm|title=Did you celebrate Blasphemy Day?|newspaper=USAToday.com|first=Leanne|last=Larmondin|date=2 October 2009|archive-date=23 June 2012|access-date=24 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120623165924/http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-02-blasphemy-day_N.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Removal of blasphemy laws by several nations ===
{{anchor | Remove | Removal }}

Other countries have removed bans on blasphemy. [[France]] did so in 1881 (this did not extend to [[Alsace-Lorraine|Alsace-Moselle region]], then part of Germany, after it joined France) to allow [[freedom of religion]] and [[freedom of the press]]. Blasphemy was abolished or repealed in [[Sweden]] in 1970, [[England]] and [[Wales]] in 2008, Norway with Acts in 2009 and 2015, the Netherlands in 2014, [[Iceland]] in 2015, France for its Alsace-Moselle region in 2016, Malta in 2016, Denmark in 2017,<ref name="Denmark"/> [[Canada]] in 2018, New Zealand in 2019, and Ireland in 2020.<ref>[[Blasphemy law#Ireland]]</ref>

==Nations with blasphemy laws==
{{Main|Blasphemy law}}{{Blasphemy laws worldwide}}
In [[Blasphemy law|some countries]], incl. those with a [[state religion]], such as [[Algeria]], [[Egypt]], [[Indonesia]], [[Iran]], [[Iraq]], [[Kuwait]], [[Malaysia]], [[Morocco]], [[Nigeria]], [[Oman]], [[Pakistan]], [[Qatar]], [[Russia]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Turkey]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]], blasphemy is illegal under the criminal code.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Countries |url=https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/ |access-date=2025-10-02 |website=End Blasphemy Laws}}</ref>

===Purpose of blasphemy laws===

In some states, blasphemy laws are used to impose the religious beliefs of a majority, while in other countries, they are justified as putatively offering protection of the religious beliefs of minorities.<ref name=IceNews/><ref name="Scolnicov2010">{{cite book|last=Scolnicov|first=Anat|title=The Right to Religious Freedom in International Law: Between Group Rights and Individual Rights|date=18 October 2010|publisher=Routledge|language=en|isbn=978-1-136-90705-0|page=261|quote=A different argument for the retention of the offence of blasphemy (and for its extension to the protection of all religions in the UK [the offence protected only the majority religion]) has been offered by Parekh: a majority religion does not need the protection offered by an offence of blasphemy, but minority religions do because of their vulnerability in the face of the majority.}}</ref><ref name="The Copenhagen Post">{{cite news|url=http://cphpost.dk/news14/national-news14/danes-overwhelmingly-support-their-own-blasphemy-law.html|title=Danes overwhelmingly support their own blasphemy law|date=21 September 2012|newspaper=[[The Copenhagen Post]]|language=en|access-date=17 May 2016|quote=Denmark's own blasphemy law makes it an offence to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark", and according to a study carried out on behalf of the liberal think-tank CEPOS, 66 per cent of the 1,000 Danes questioned answered that the law should not be repealed.|archive-date=7 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307114523/http://cphpost.dk/news14/national-news14/danes-overwhelmingly-support-their-own-blasphemy-law.html|url-status=live}}</ref> With blasphemy banned and treated as a crime, it can be either some laws which directly punish religious blasphemy,<ref>See [[Blasphemy law]]</ref> or some laws that allow those who are offended by blasphemy to punish blasphemers. Those laws may condone penalties or retaliation for blasphemy under the labels of [[blasphemous libel]],<ref>{{cite web  | last = Kerr  | first = ine  | title = Libel and blasphemy bill passed by the Dail  | work = The Irish Independent  | date = 9 July 2009  | url = http://www.independent.ie/national-news/libel-and-blasphemy-bill-passed-by-the-dail-1813479.html  | access-date = 17 November 2009  | archive-date = 17 October 2012  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121017032913/http://www.independent.ie/national-news/libel-and-blasphemy-bill-passed-by-the-dail-1813479.html  | url-status = live  }}</ref> expression of opposition, or "vilification," of religion or of some religious practices,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/aa1991204/s124a.html |title=Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 – Sect 124A: Vilification on grounds of race, religion, sexuality or gender identity unlawful |publisher=Austlii.edu.au |access-date=10 November 2011 |archive-date=4 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120404021509/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/aa1991204/s124a.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=23370 |title=Victoria Police – Racial and religious vilification |publisher=Police.vic.gov.au |access-date=10 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927090124/http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=23370 |archive-date=27 September 2011}}</ref> religious insult,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=11512 |title=European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), ''Report on the relationship between freedom of expression and freedom of religion: the issue of regulation and prosecution of blasphemy, religious insult and incitement to religious hatred'', 17–18 October 2008, Doc. No. CDL-AD(2008)026 |publisher=Merlin.obs.coe.int |access-date=10 November 2011 |archive-date=2 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111002221825/http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=11512 }}</ref> or [[hate speech]].<ref>See [[Blasphemy law]] and [[Hate speech]].</ref>

=== Nations with blasphemy laws ===
{{anchor | law }}
As of 2012{{Update inline|date=September 2023}}, 33 countries had some form of anti-blasphemy laws in their legal code.<ref name=pewres/> Of these, 21 were Muslim-majority nations – [[Afghanistan]], [[Algeria]], [[Bahrain]], [[Egypt]], [[Indonesia]], [[Iran]], [[Jordan]], [[Kuwait]], [[Lebanon]], [[Malaysia]], the [[Maldives]], [[Morocco]], [[Oman]], [[Pakistan]], [[Qatar]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Somalia]], [[Sudan]], [[Turkey]], the [[UAE]] and [[Western Sahara]]. Blasphemy is treated as a [[capital crime]] (death penalty) in some Muslim nations.<ref name=wsj/> In these nations, such laws have led to the persecution, lynchings, murder or arrest of minorities and dissident members, after flimsy accusations.<ref>[https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21635070-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-legitimise-intolerance-bad-mouthing Bad-mouthing: Pakistan's blasphemy laws legitimise intolerance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170910235624/https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21635070-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-legitimise-intolerance-bad-mouthing |date=10 September 2017 }} The Economist (29 November 2014)</ref><ref>Sources of claims:

* [http://www.religiouswatch.com/rwworld.htm World of Intolerance] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091119105151/http://www.religiouswatch.com/rwworld.htm|date=19 November 2009}} ''Religious Watch''. Retrieved 5 October 2011
<!-- Multiple MALWARE threats 5Oct2011, this URL disabled: h*t*t*p://www.christianpost.com/article/20091113/100-groups-oppose-u-n-defamation-of-religions-proposals/index.html -->
* [http://www.iheu.org/united-nations-will-violate-human-rights-says-new-report-religious-freedoms United Nations will violate Human Rights] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018085124/http://iheu.org/united-nations-will-violate-human-rights-says-new-report-religious-freedoms/|date=18 October 2017}} ''International Humanist and Ethical Union''. Retrieved 5 October 2011
* {{cite web |date=11 August 2009 |title=Muslim scholar says Scrap blasphemy laws |url=http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/Muslim-scholar-says-Scrap-blasphemy-laws-which-bring-shame-on-Islam-and-Pakistan-2058-1-1.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120305213255/http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/Muslim-scholar-says-Scrap-blasphemy-laws-which-bring-shame-on-Islam-and-Pakistan-2058-1-1.html |archive-date=5 March 2012 |access-date=5 October 2011 |work=Herald Malaysia Online}}
* [http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1414&Itemid=1 Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100528000741/http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1414&Itemid=1|date=28 May 2010}} May 2009 (Pakistan, etc.). Retrieved 5 October 2011
* [http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/af783bb51170854380256739004faac4?Opendocument A call upon states to work toward abolishing the juvenile death penalty] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629190656/http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/af783bb51170854380256739004faac4?Opendocument|date=29 June 2011}} U.N. January 1999. Retrieved 5 October 2011
* [http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia Indonesia – Amnesty International Report 2009] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091121192723/http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia|date=21 November 2009}} ''Amnesty International''. Retrieved 5 October 2011</ref>

The other twelve nations with anti-blasphemy laws in 2012 included [[India]] and [[Singapore]], as well as [[Christian state|Christian majority states]], including [[Denmark]] (abolished in 2017),<ref name="Denmark">[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/denmark-scraps-334-year-old-blasphemy-law Denmark scraps 334-year-old blasphemy law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170602171306/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/denmark-scraps-334-year-old-blasphemy-law |date=2 June 2017 }} 2 June 2017 the Guardian</ref> [[Finland]], [[Germany]], [[Greece]] (abolished in 2019), [[Ireland]] (abolished in 2020), Italy, [[Malta]] (abolished in 2016), the [[Netherlands]] (abolished in 2014), [[Nigeria]], [[Norway]] (abolished in 2015) and [[Poland]].<ref name=pewres/> [[Spain]]'s "offending religious feelings" law is also, effectively, a prohibition on blasphemy.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/spain/|title=Spain country profile|work=End Blasphemy Laws|publisher=[[International Humanist and Ethical Union]]|access-date=20 November 2018}}</ref> In Denmark, the former blasphemy law which had support of 66% of its citizens in 2012, made it an offence to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark".<ref name="The Copenhagen Post"/> Many Danes saw the "blasphemy law as helping integration because it promotes the acceptance of a multicultural and multi-faith society."<ref name=IceNews>{{cite web|url=http://www.icenews.is/2012/10/02/denmark-still-largely-in-support-of-blasphemy-law/#axzz48tCovTxj|title=Denmark still largely in support of 'blasphemy' law|date=2 October 2012|publisher=IceNews|language=en|access-date=17 May 2016|quote=A recent survey has shown that Danish citizens still largely back the country's 'blasphemy' law. The law, which makes it illegal to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark", is supported by around 66 per cent of Danish voters, according to a recent survey conducted by the liberal group CEPOS. Speaking about the report, religious expert Tim Jensen from the University of Southern Denmark said, "Danes may see the blasphemy law as helping integration because it promotes the acceptance of a multicultural and multi-faith society. But it can also be problematic if it reflects a belief that the feelings of religious people have a special status and require special protection," the Berlingske news agency reports.|archive-date=1 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160701133500/http://www.icenews.is/2012/10/02/denmark-still-largely-in-support-of-blasphemy-law/#axzz48tCovTxj|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the judgment ''[[E.S. v. Austria (2018)|E.S. v. Austria]]'' (2018), the [[European Court of Human Rights]] declined to strike down the blasphemy law in [[Austria]] on [[Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 10]] (freedom of speech) grounds, saying that criminalisation of blasphemy could be supported within a state's [[margin of appreciation]]. This decision was widely criticised by human rights organisations and commentators both in Europe and [[North America]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://iheu.org/european-court-fails-overturn-blasphemy-conviction-austria/|title=IHEU 'frustrated', as European Court fails to overturn 'blasphemy' conviction in Austria|date=26 October 2018|access-date=15 November 2018|publisher=[[International Humanist and Ethical Union]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://humanism.org.uk/2018/10/29/european-court-of-human-rights-rules-that-austria-can-keep-its-blasphemy-law/|work=Humanists UK|date=29 October 2018|title=European Court of Human Rights rules that Austria can keep its blasphemy law|access-date=18 November 2018|archive-date=15 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115153610/https://humanism.org.uk/2018/10/29/european-court-of-human-rights-rules-that-austria-can-keep-its-blasphemy-law/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/europe-rules-against-free-speech/574369/|title=A Flawed European Ruling on Free Speech|work=[[The Atlantic]]|access-date=15 November 2018|last=Cottee|first=Simon|date=31 October 2018|archive-date=15 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115153715/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/europe-rules-against-free-speech/574369/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In [[Afghanistan]], [[Iran]], [[Pakistan]], [[Saudi Arabia]] and the northern portion of [[Nigeria]], blasphemy is punishable by death. The act is punishable by up to one year of imprisonment in [[Brazil]], up to two years of imprisonment in [[South Africa]], up to three years of imprisonment in [[India]], up to four years of imprisonment in [[Russia]] and up to five years of imprisonment in [[Indonesia]].{{cn|date=September 2025}}

==Hyperbolic use of the term ''blasphemy''==
{{anchor | Hyper }}

In contemporary language, the notion of blasphemy is often used [[hyperbole|hyperbolically]] (in a deliberately exaggerated manner). This usage has garnered some interest among linguists recently, and the word ''blasphemy'' is a common case used for illustrative purposes.<ref>
Recanati, F. (1995) "The alleged priority of literal interpretation". ''Cognitive Science'' 19: 207–232.
:[[Robyn Carston|Carston, R.]] (1997) "Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed?" ''Linguistische Berichte'' 8: 103–127.
:Carston, R. (2000). "Explicature and semantics." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1–44. Revised version to appear in Davis & Gillon (forthcoming{{when|date=September 2022}}).
:Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1998) "The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon". In Carruthers & Boucher (1998: 184–200).{{ISBN?}}
:Glucksberg, S. (2001) ''Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.{{ISBN?}}
:Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (2002) "Truthfulness and relevance". ''Mind'' 111: 583–632.
</ref>

==See also==
* [[Blasphemy laws]]
* [[Defamation of religion and the United Nations]]
* [[Desecration]]
* [[Freedom of speech]]
* [[Hate crime]]
* [[Blasphemy Day|International Blasphemy Day]]
* [[Quran desecration]]
* [[Religious offense]]
* [[Sacrilege]]
* [[Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
* ''[[Maledicta]]: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression'' {{ISSN|0363-3659}}.
* Levy, L. ''Blasphemy''. Chapel Hill, 1993.
* Dartevelle, P., Denis, Ph., Robyn, J. (eds.). ''Blasphèmes et libertés''. Paris: CERF, 1993.
* {{cite book|last=Plate|first=S. Brent|title=Blasphemy: Art that Offends|location=London|publisher=Black Dog Publishing|year=2006|isbn=1-904772-53-6}}

== External links ==
{{wiktionary}}
{{Commons category|Blasphemy}}
{{Wikiquote}}
* The Rational Response Squad: [https://web.archive.org/web/20061224081806/http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/ The Blasphemy Challenge]
* [http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=559 A More4 news film report on how insulting the prophet Mohammed in Pakistan is a capital offence, and defiling the Koran carries life imprisonment] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070323002244/http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=559 |date=23 March 2007 }}.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090713032003/http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile.htm review of laws relating to blasphemy and sacrilege in various jurisdictions]
* {{CathEncy |wstitle = Blasphemy |author = John Webster Melody }}
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1119&letter=B&search=Blasphemy Jewish Encyclopedia] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606160323/http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1119&letter=B&search=Blasphemy |date=6 June 2011 }} – Blasphemy
* {{cite Americana |wstitle = Blasphemy |short = x }}

{{Clear}}
{{Blasphemy law}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Blasphemy| ]]
[[Category:Religious terminology]]
[[Category:Freedom of expression]]
[[Category:Anti-religious sentiment]]