The very concept of blasphemy is fundamentally flawed because 1) Anyone not sharing the dogmatic belief in your faith and believing another dogmatic faith is directly contradicting your beliefs and by implication believing them to be false. That means that the sole truth you

profess is plain falsehood to someone else. Should that offend you? If yes then the very basic right of freedom of conscience, let alone freedom of expression, is taken away from society. If blasphemy is a valid concept then the freedom to exercise your religion is invalidated.

2) Sentiments and emotions don't equal to rights. This is a very modern, post-modern phenomenon in-fact, to assert that personal emotions equal to personal rights. Materiality is the basis of rights. If your safety and bodily integrity is harmed then you have to be protected.

3) Where to draw the line is subjective. For instance, in reign of Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan a coin was issued which had an image of Propher Muhammad (S.A.W.). There is a long lineage of depiction of the prophet. Ibn-Marwan's age was that of Tabieen (those who have spent time in

company of or meet or seen Sahaba) and Taba-Tabieen. Their age is considered to be the best next to that of age of the prophet and Sahaba in terms of spiritual blessedness. Today, you will kill people for depicting the prophet as it is blasphemy for you. Were the Tabieen

blasphemers according to you? Similarly, you would lynch someone for saying something wrong but Taliban will flog you for blasphemy for shaving your beard as it contradicts the Sunnah and thus mocks the prophet. If you are right how are Taliban wrong?
4) Where does it all leave

co-existence with others and especially people of other faiths? Would you leave part of your supposed faith if it is considered a blasphemy by others? Where does that will leave the validity of the sole truth claim of yours? Will it be majoritarianism always then?

-end-