Sunday, October 19, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Death for apostasy?

by Nesrine Malik

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/17/islam-religion1

AC Grayling and the Council of Ex-Muslims are distorting the picture and undermining efforts to bring change

Reading AC Grayling's latest article and listening to the protestations of the Council of Ex-Muslims, you would think that the death penalty is being gratuitously and frequently applied to those who renounce Islam or harbour thoughts of apostasy.

As a Muslim who has lived most of my life in Muslim countries, this picture is hard to recognise. I have several friends and family members who are non-believers and apart from some efforts to return them to the straight and narrow or at least go through the motions of religious observance, they have not come into any physical danger. A close friend — hitherto religious — only recently sent me a long, tortured email detailing his journey away from Islam and from all religion; he expressed no fears for his life or safety, merely trepidation at the prospect of acclimatising to this new God-free world view.

Although the Council of Ex-Muslims and AC Grayling depict the threat to life and limb as an indisputable fact, in reality there are differences of opinion among Muslim scholars (ostensibly the hard core of the religion) regarding the death penalty for apostates.

This is not to say that Muslim governments — and Arab ones in particular — have a tolerant view of apostasy but the death threat is invoked only rarely and more for political reasons rather than religion ones: to set an example or to save face as a proxy punishment for challenging the social or political status quo. While this is in no way acceptable, it is an extension of the general lack of enshrined civic human rights and evolved political institutions and processes — a historical, social and geo-political reality in many Muslim countries that makes a mockery of any comparison to the experience of those renouncing Christianity or Judaism.

Nawal El Sadaawi, a prominent Egyptian writer and social activist, has clashed several times with religious authorities and has even dismissed some of the rituals of the Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca) as pagan, but I do not believe she lives in any fear for her life. Of course, there is always the possibility that violent individuals will take matters into their own hands, as in the case of the Nobel prize-winning writer, Naguib Mahfouz, but these are a minority found in all religions.

AC Grayling repeatedly refers to "Islamic states", as if political Islam is a natural extension of state-sponsored Islam. If anything, political Islam is persecuted at home as much as it is reviled abroad. It is also a vehicle for dissent against repressive regimes — violent Islam being its warped cousin.

This is where the primary lacuna becomes apparent: the conflation of politics and religion in the Muslim world. The "repressive and political social climate" that AC Grayling talks about cannot be reduced merely, or attributed entirely, to Islam. To discount the myriad of other factors in states that range from dictatorial monarchies in the Gulf to entrenched presidential dynasties in Egypt and Syria is absurd and undermines efforts to bring about change.

It is easy to appear churlish or insensitive when disputing the assertions of people who claim their lives are in danger but we must also consider the possibility that some will annex the emotive power of "death for apostasy" to serve their own ends, be they personal or political. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born ex-Muslim who has lived in the US for almost 20 years, became a hero of the neocons after claiming that some casually dismissive words from a cleric in a TV debate amounted to "a fatwa". In due course, Time Magazine listed her as one of 100 influential people "whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world".

Rejecting Islam and being anti-Islam are two different things, as are rejecting religion and being anti-religion. One is a spiritual lifestyle decision while the other entails some action, some campaign to eject religion from public life.

To call for religious freedom for all, including those who still believe, with the purpose of reform in mind is a noble endeavour. But claiming Islam is the root cause — or in some cases the only cause — of the Muslim world's malaise, and crusading against it on that basis is both disingenuous and counterproductive. It serves only to frame the argument through the prism of western experience and alienates the real protagonists even further.

To read AC Grayling's article, go to:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3251,Free-to-Think-for-Themselves,AC-Grayling

Posted: Sunday, October 19, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 120 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #266439 by PaulJ on October 19, 2008 at 1:45 am

This is not to say that Muslim governments - and Arab ones in particular - have a tolerant view of apostasy but the death threat is invoked only rarely and more for political reasons rather than religion ones: to set an example or to save face as a proxy punishment for challenging the social or political status quo. While this is in no way acceptable, it is an extension of the general lack of enshrined civic human rights and evolved political institutions and processes - a historical, social and geo-political reality in many Muslim countries that makes a mockery of any comparison to the experience of those renouncing Christianity or Judaism.

I get it now. Apostates are only lightly killed. That's OK then.

Other Comments by PaulJ

2. Comment #266441 by alexmzk on October 19, 2008 at 1:50 am

only being killed once in a while is bad enough.

Other Comments by alexmzk

3. Comment #266448 by Chris Davis on October 19, 2008 at 2:09 am

Riiight. In sum, then:

1) Only some apostates are killed
2) The 'death to unbelievers' calls are just suggestions, and not to be taken seriously.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

4. Comment #266452 by Richard Dawkins on October 19, 2008 at 2:15 am

I once was part of a television discussion group with "Sir" Iqbal Sacranie, then Britain's chief unelected but government-recognized spokesman for the Muslim "community". I challenged him to deny that the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. He hedged and fudged, and finally was forced to admit that it is. He tried to excuse it by saying that it is very seldom enforced, and only after the culprit has been given every opportunity to repent and return to the true religion. "Sir" Iqbal was the one, you may remember, who said that the death sentence against Salman Rushdie was "too good for him". He is the kind of "community leader" to whom the British government, Royal family and media continually suck up, for fear of being thought racist or "Islamophobic" if they don't.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

5. Comment #266453 by Gruff Mckenzie on October 19, 2008 at 2:18 am

We should probably apply this kind of thinking in our schools and when parents complain just tell them to stop whining as only a few of the pupils will get killed...there's a difference between rejecting school and being anti school. Behaviour might improve.

Other Comments by Gruff Mckenzie

6. Comment #266454 by beeline on October 19, 2008 at 2:19 am

...in reality there are differences of opinion among Muslim scholars (ostensibly the hard core of the religion) regarding the death penalty for apostates.

Exactly. We'd like there to be no difference of opinion, thanks. The Thought Police should be left in the world of fiction.

Other Comments by beeline

7. Comment #266457 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 2:23 am

Even if it is true that the death penalty for apostasy is rarely enforced, it is still a serious problem. Encouraging people to believe that others deserve to die is unacceptable. It is a form of incitement. The violent minority taking things into their own hands are the ones who are generally considered to have conformed to the letter and spirit of religious teachings.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #266460 by Laurie Fraser on October 19, 2008 at 2:30 am

Now, could we have an article pointing out that extreme evangelical calls for abortionists to be killed are only an aberration, and in most cases those doctors aren't, in fact, assassinated, which makes it OK?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #266461 by Vinelectric on October 19, 2008 at 2:31 am

Ever heard of Salman Rushdie?

Anways, here is a famous quote from the Bukhari text (Book 84, Hadith 57)

Narrated by 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

This is mainstream Muslim opinion. However the fact that the death penalty is not enforced is simply because the Sharia is enforced in only three countries in the region. Even so, the apostate is guaranteed everlasting hell fire an none of their good deeds (e.g giving in charity) can redeem them.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

10. Comment #266462 by Bonzai on October 19, 2008 at 2:31 am

This is the kind of moderate apologetics that Fanusi was talking about.

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #266464 by Lemniscate on October 19, 2008 at 2:37 am

I don't see how Nesrine Malik can call religious freedom a noble endeavour, while saying that the threat of death for apostasy, even if not always enforced, isn't that bad, especially when it's more likely to be enforced on those who are politically active and have a chance of making a difference to religious freedom.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

12. Comment #266467 by Enlightenme.. on October 19, 2008 at 2:46 am

[#4]
Don't forget 'Lord' Ahmed Richard, who, whilst is to be commended for;

[Wiki:] "Lord Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up to promote world peace in the aftermath of the 9/11 with an effort to build briges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance."

and;
"In November 2007 Ahmed was involved in a diplomatic effort to secure the release of Gillian Gibbons from custody in Sudan."

..was also recorded to have this to say on Rushdie, just last year:

On June 19th 2007 Lord Ahmed criticised the honouring of Salman Rushdie with a knighthood because of what Lord Ahmed saw as Rushdie's offensiveness to Islam. He was reported to have said, "It's hypocrisy by Tony Blair who two weeks ago was talking about building bridges to mainstream Muslims, and then he's honouring a man who has insulted the British public and been divisive in community relations.""This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world. Forgiving and forgetting is one thing, but honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did, I think is going a bit too far." He also said on BBC Radio 4's PM programme that he had been appalled by the award to a man he accused of having 'blood on his hands'.

-----------------------
"the death threat is invoked only rarely"

Oh, ok, perhaps our criticism is a bit harsh then, carry on.
------------------------

Also on 'Sir' Sacranie's record:
January 3, 2006, Sacranie told BBC Radio 4's PM programme he believes homosexuality is "not acceptable", and denounced same-sex civil partnerships as "harmful". He said that bringing in 'gay marriage' did "not augur well" for building the foundations of society.

He was awarded an OBE in 1999 and a knighthood in the 2005 Queen's Birthday Honours for "services to the Muslim community, to charities and to..

..community relations." (!!)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

13. Comment #266468 by Communist on October 19, 2008 at 2:51 am

The article by Nesrine Malik is another typical example of bet hedging and the glossing over of serious ideological problems in religion. Once again I propose the Aleister Crowley test: Imagine that Malik's article was written by a supporter of a secular ideology that has at present or in the past supported violent percecution of apostates. What would the public reaction be in that case?

Imagine that I wrote an article about death penalty for contrarevolutionary activities. Imagine that I wrote about such a death penalty as part of law in the ideal Marxist state, is 'used only rarely', that there is a 'difference of opinion' among Marxist scholars, that there is a 'myriad of other factors' and so forth. Would I be off the hook then?

And Malik's last sentence about 'the prism of western experience' is just pandering to the fashion of postmodernism (wich is now fortunately fading).

Other Comments by Communist

14. Comment #266473 by JAMCAM87 on October 19, 2008 at 3:13 am

It is true that the death penalty is not enforced in the majority of cases, but the majority of cases occur either in western countries or in more liberal pockets in India and Turkey.

The lack of enforcement is due to a triumph of human nature which has managed to overide the dogma implanted in the minds of those infected.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

15. Comment #266474 by Vaal on October 19, 2008 at 3:16 am

I don't know why this is even a debate. Anybody who calls for any form of discrimination, never mind a death threat, against somebody who does not "kow-tow" to the fascist religion they have been bought up into, should be prosecuted every time, without fail.

Any religious leaders calling for death-threats should be incarcerated. The media should make it very clear that it is totally unacceptable and bigots like Iqbal Sacranie, sitting smirking on TV, while baying their sick poison as "holy script" should be put right every time. It is frankly unbelievable that any "racist" comment is jumped on as the "sin of sins", yet people who support murder in the name of their religion have people nodding their heads in the name of relativism. How repugnant, sick and self-destructive is that?

What a weak religion Islam is, to threaten the poor souls born into their religion, with foul murder should they choose to leave it, or criticise it. Mohammad was obviously terrified that his cult would evaporate upon his death, without his disgusting murderous threats.

Perhaps Ibn Sacranie should face a death threat for not worshipping the flying spaghetti monster?

Unbelievable that the "religion of peace" can not see the irony in the immorality of religiously sanctioned death threats based on the idolatry they accord a 7th century desert gangster called Mohammad? It beggars belief that people in the 21st Century are so credulous.

Other Comments by Vaal

16. Comment #266475 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 3:17 am

Comment #266462 by Bonzai

I am not sure what point you are making. There are plenty who recognise the problem of moderate apologists. But, fortunately, relatively few who would suggest we take impractical suggestions from the extreme-far-right about how to deal with such problems.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #266477 by oasis-al-reason on October 19, 2008 at 3:25 am

I have several friends and family members who are non-believers and apart from some efforts to return them to the straight and narrow or at least go through the motions of religious observance, they have not come into any physical danger.

the death threat is invoked only rarely

Dear Madam Muslim Apologist, please proof read your articles carefully, else you do your contention ill service.

Other Comments by oasis-al-reason

18. Comment #266480 by Logicel on October 19, 2008 at 3:35 am

After reading this mush, I thought of the following:

Scott Altran is hugging himself with joy, chortling with gleeful satisfaction, crying out loud, someone understands my particular brand of intellectual waffling!!!

From mush you came, from mush you shall return.

When you have a vicious circle being set into motion by several components, feeding and supporting and urging itself along, tackling any of those components will increase the possibility of slowing/breaking such a vicious circle. If certain Islamic tenets are part of this viciousness, one can attack them without worrying if one is leaving something else out that is also feeding the vicious circle.

To use what seems lately to be a viral phrase on the Web, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Other Comments by Logicel

19. Comment #266482 by mandelstam on October 19, 2008 at 3:43 am

"The death threat is invoked......."

Is there more to say?

It is disgusting that this is treated as the thoughts of a reasonable person, that such a person and such thoughts are accorded respect.

Lost for words....

Other Comments by mandelstam

20. Comment #266483 by oasis-al-reason on October 19, 2008 at 3:44 am

RD said above :-

I once was part of a television discussion group with "Sir" Iqbal Sacranie, then Britain's chief unelected but government-recognized spokesman for the Muslim "community". I challenged him to deny that the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. He hedged and fudged, and finally was forced to admit that it is. He tried to excuse it by saying that it is very seldom enforced, and only after the culprit has been given every opportunity to repent and return to the true religion. "Sir" Iqbal was the one, you may remember, who said that the death sentence against Salman Rushdie was "too good for him". He is the kind of "community leader" to whom the British government, Royal family and media continually suck up, for fear of being thought racist or "Islamophobic" if they don't.

I'd say its more to do with them (govt/royalty/media) knowing which side of the bread is buttered on. As an expat in the Middle East I witness dollops of butter slapped on daily. The oily kind.

Other Comments by oasis-al-reason

21. Comment #266488 by Dr Doctor on October 19, 2008 at 4:14 am

Again, the point is missed in an eloquent way. Religion provides, quite happily, the excuse for violent acts whilst at the same time claiming to have a civilising effect.

Why is it so important to some to run the lives of others through threats and intimidation? Religion is the antithesis of live and let live, and gives the sociopath the tool of false piety.

Once you have decided that you no longer want to be part of a particular religion that should be it. Participating in a religion as a volantary act, an educated choice I am fine with. But apostasy is where Islam (and Scientology) steps over the line.

Once inside a religion, the arrogance of presuming that codes, ethics and dogmatic assertions on reality (that cracker is the body of christ) apply to those outside of that religion is breathtakingly oppressive.

Those that pander to this oppression, this arrogance earn nothing but my contempt.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

22. Comment #266491 by Spinoza on October 19, 2008 at 4:53 am

Well, it's pretty easy to see why she wrote this. It's the same situation no matter what moderate Muslim you talk to. They experience cognitive dissonance when you bring up solid cases of clearly Islamic inspired/motivated/directly called for violence, hatred, etc. And this causes them to simultaneously rebuke violent Islam while deflecting any responsibility on the part of Islam for that violence.

But that's just not sensible. Not only is it a mild form of "No True Scotsman", it's not going to change matters any. Essentially it attempts to somehow shift the blame for continued violence on the part of Muslims to the very people who are loudly decrying this violence. To blame AC Grayling, LONG an opponent of Christianity (just read the relevant entry in his "The Meaning of Things"!) for "further alienating" Muslims... is ridiculous.

Yes, there are political, economic, social, etc., motivations for Islamic violence TOO, but so what? That doesn't make the sentences in the Qu'ran and the Hadith(s) any more sane.

Just ask Aqsa Parvez.

Other Comments by Spinoza

23. Comment #266505 by dsainty on October 19, 2008 at 6:22 am

This is not to say that Muslim governments - and Arab ones in particular - have a tolerant view of apostasy but the death threat is invoked .... to set an example ... this is in no way acceptable ... lack of enshrined civic human rights

This is exactly the kind of article one might write if the author fears for their lives but still feels they have to make a fierce condemnation - in code. Bravo.

The clue is that no-one could possibly reasonably suggest that the threat of execution doesn't need to be taken seriously because those holding the axe won't always be in the mood for blood.

Other Comments by dsainty

24. Comment #266513 by Titania on October 19, 2008 at 7:11 am

It serves only to frame the argument through the prism of western experience and alienates the real protagonists even further.

The argument must be framed through the prism of western experience and values; else we lose the argument before it has begun and three centuries of enlightenment is for naught. Also apostates continue to be killed for apostasy.

The "real protagonists" choose to be alienated because they wallow in the mush of their own religious thinking and indoctrination. Whenever and wherever religious justifications for anti-social rhetoric and conduct enter public discourse, it must be pointed out for what it is as AC Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others are doing.

Even the author of this article, Nesrine Malik, who is trying to absolve moderates from blame for Muslim extremism, must be called out for thinking all is well since the death penalty for apostasy is invoked rarely. Has Malik not seen the rash of honor killings by Muslims in Western countries such as the Netherlands, the UK, Canada and even the US? Malik needs to take off her Muslim tinted glasses and see the world as it really is.

Rarely? Bah!

The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honour-killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/01/16/for_muslim_women_a_deadly_defiance/

http://www.pbs.org/speaktruthtopower/rana.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/01/23/cstillwell.DTL

Other Comments by Titania

25. Comment #266517 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 7:29 am

AC Grayling and the Council of Ex-Muslims are distorting the picture and undermining efforts to bring change

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the Council of Russian Exiles are distorting the picture and undermining efforts to bring change in Stalinist Russia.

Other Comments by decius

26. Comment #266520 by OhioLen on October 19, 2008 at 7:40 am

Translation: won't you please get back into the closet?

Other Comments by OhioLen

27. Comment #266523 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 19, 2008 at 7:54 am

Oh, ok, at least only one or 2 are being killed occasionally.

Of course, there is always the possibility that violent individuals will take matters into their own hands, as in the case of the Nobel prize-winning writer, Naguib Mahfouz, but these are a minority found in all religions

But not all religions hold that you should kill someone after they lose their faith. Islam strongly leaves this option open to any of their fervent believers.

When is this person going to come out and denounce the nasty things that are done in the name of Islam? And condemn them "every" time?

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

28. Comment #266527 by Tj Green on October 19, 2008 at 7:59 am

Evolution has survival strategies why can`t religion?

Other Comments by Tj Green

29. Comment #266530 by KRKBAB on October 19, 2008 at 8:15 am

"at least go thru the motions of religious observance, they have not come into any physical danger"
What the hell!- so your saying, for the time being, we're not going to harm you for not coming back to our delusion, but there is a possibility that we WILL at some point harm you if we deem it?
Moderate schmoderate

Other Comments by KRKBAB

30. Comment #266543 by rod-the-farmer on October 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

And I suppose it would then be acceptable to say "Well, only rarely is the death penalty invoked against those who leave the Labour Party".

A pox on their house.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

31. Comment #266558 by Patrick McArdle on October 19, 2008 at 9:56 am

"Reading AC Grayling's latest article and listening to the protestations of the Council of Ex-Muslims, you would think that the death penalty is being gratuitously and frequently applied to those who renounce Islam or harbour thoughts of apostasy."

Um, if Punishment A is appropriate for Crime B, then by definition Punishment A cannot be applied "gratuitously" to the perpetrator of Crime B; in fact, NOT applying a just punishment is itself morally wrong.

Unless B is not really a crime at all...

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

32. Comment #266561 by Dinah on October 19, 2008 at 10:00 am

This is the problem with so-called 'moderate' Muslims - most of them are not prepared to unequivocally condemn the actions of the extremists in their religion. Islam is regressing not progressing - the fundamentalists are imposing a 'purer' ie more hard-line version of their faith on their less extreme brethren. It makes no difference if a small or large majority of Muslims oppose the death penalty for apostasy, stonings, amputations, suicide bombings, etc if they are not willing to speak out against these practices and attempt to abolish them in a united opposition.

Other Comments by Dinah

33. Comment #266564 by Layla Nasreddin on October 19, 2008 at 10:10 am

Well, this is progress...of a sort. She isn't flat-out denying that the "death for apostasy" rule exists, as many Muslims do. She isn't defending it on the grounds that "countries execute traitors; why can't the ummah, the 'nation' of all Muslims, also execute those who defect?" (yes, I've seen that).

A while back, I probably would have said something like, "There are some liberal scholars who say that this rule is not truly Islamic." Which is true enough, but even at the time I knew it wasn't really very tenable because of things like the hadith Vinelectric quoted above, and because, in fact, plenty of scholars DO endorse it and many books of Islamic jurisprudence DO call for it. Plus there's the little matter of death fatwas being proclaimed by Islamic fanatics against those they see as "apostates" (even if they aren't) -- if there truly is nothing in the sources encouraging it, why is it endorsed by so many of those who really know their Islamic texts?

Nawal El Sadaawi, a prominent Egyptian writer and social activist, has clashed several times with religious authorities and has even dismissed some of the rituals of the Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca) as pagan, but I do not believe she lives in any fear for her life.

Nawal El-Sadaawi HAS lived in fear of her life, in point of fact; in the early '90s she felt threatened enough by Islamists in Egypt to temporarily move to the US.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

I once was part of a television discussion group with "Sir" Iqbal Sacranie, then Britain's chief unelected but government-recognized spokesman for the Muslim "community".

OK, somebody explain something to me here. Why on Earth does the British government feel the need to interact with the "Muslim community" through self-appointed "community leaders" and "spokesmen"? Why does it not interact with them as individual British citizens (yes, they are citizens and not just "subjects"!), each entitled to the rights guaranteed to all British citizens? Surely it is blatant discrimination to overlook violations of such rights such as the right to freedom of religion and the right to sexual equality under the law because the "community" thinks otherwise?

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

34. Comment #266565 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 19, 2008 at 10:12 am

I guess the question I should ask Nesrine is, would it be appauling if I issued a death threat against her for the views she publishes? Would she think that a terrible thing? Would that be sexist, racist, islamophobic of me, or just downright wrong!

I mean, it's unlikely my death threat would actually be carried out, but I'm sure she'd be deeply offended and would want the police to investigate what kind of person I am. She may rightly want some protection from the police, just in case.

By the way, I do "not" want her killed - not at all. I dislike what she says, but I prefer that she have a full, long and happy life. Hey, she might even come to her senses one day. Unfortunately, Islam does not make the same clear denial that I do!

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

35. Comment #266569 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 10:36 am

Comment #266564 by Layla Nasreddin

Why on Earth does the British government feel the need to interact with the "Muslim community" through self-appointed "community leaders" and "spokesmen"?

British governments have always done this, no matter what party is in power. They take to "leaders of the black community" and "leaders of the gay community". Being gay, this puzzled me, as I did not get to vote for any leaders.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #266575 by DiveMedic on October 19, 2008 at 10:43 am

I wonder if this apologist would be so dismissive if a nation were to adopt a policy of executing people who were openly Muslim, but only enforced it in rare circumstances.

Other Comments by DiveMedic

37. Comment #266576 by Wosret on October 19, 2008 at 10:45 am

At least you get a community, Steve. I'm just a member of the homogeneous masses.

Other Comments by Wosret

38. Comment #266578 by D'Arcy on October 19, 2008 at 11:03 am

Of course the Christians are completely blameless in executing those who disagree with them, but modern society has tamed them a bit.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/burn-heretics.htm

IMO the same will apply to the Islamics in time.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

39. Comment #266583 by zoltix on October 19, 2008 at 11:17 am

Comment by Zara in response to #266462 by Bonzai

>I am not sure what point you are making.<

Yes you are.
And you are noticeably very touchy regarding Fanusi and we know why.

This thread (and this forum) is all the poorer because of Fanusi's hounding.

I am also familiar with the dangerous "impracticable suggestions" ploy.
It is a common debating device by the soft left (trade union leaders use it a lot).

It's purpose is to hinder debate by stopping people making suggestions unless they already have solutions.
I also note you use the far right smear to infer that ideas which may already appear within a group that you disagree with do not merit discussion. Even if those ideas arise for different reasons.

I have a long history in the Trotskyite Left and can see these debating points for what they are.

Other Comments by zoltix

40. Comment #266585 by Szymanowski on October 19, 2008 at 11:21 am

Oh well that's FINE then, you only get killed for apostasy SOMETIMES. It's actually a peaceful religion / form of government.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

41. Comment #266587 by Ian Bamlett on October 19, 2008 at 11:30 am

the death threat is invoked only rarely and more for political reasons rather than religion ones: to set an example or to save face as a proxy punishment for challenging the social or political status quo

They just don't get it do they

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

42. Comment #266589 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 19, 2008 at 11:40 am

I've asked Fanusi to post. I think he'd have something interesting to say on this Islamic apostasy issue too. However, he refuses to do so.

It's his choice. If he doesn't post though, I'm sure others will be able to make similar points and arguments that he would make.

Come on zoltix, you don't neccessarily need Fanusi to say the things you want to say.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

43. Comment #266593 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #266583 by zoltix

It's purpose is to hinder debate by stopping people making suggestions unless they already have solutions.

I am after solutions that solve problems, rather than suggestions which do nothing other than stoke up fear and hatred. When someone repeatedly makes suggestions that aren't practical it is appropriate to question their motives.

This thread (and this forum) is all the poorer because of Fanusi's hounding.

"hounding"? I really think you should follow conversations that have occured here over the past months. I find it ironic that some of those who can attack others with both insult and obscenity can suddenly cry "foul" and claim they are being "hounded" when a successful challenge to their views is made.

I also note you use the far right smear to infer that ideas which may already appear within a group that you disagree with do not merit discussion.

You really need to read over the discussions in detail. Me, and others, have described in some detail why suggestions like targetting whole groups can be actually counter-productive.

I am sorry, but any suggestions that there were attempt to stifle debate is absurd.

Perhaps you would actually like to come up with some practical ways to deal with the problems you see?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #266595 by Wosret on October 19, 2008 at 11:52 am

Fanusi is just being a big baby, no one asked him to stop posting. He asked for a poll to be taken, and it looked to me like no one voted for him to leave, but he left anyway. I'm entirely ambivalent about his coming back or staying gone. I think he's sulking.

From what I understand several people have even personally requested that he returns. What does he want, the entirety of RD.net to grovel for his much needed return? He can keep dreaming.

I didn't want him to leave, and I don't think anyone did, so his leaving is entirely his own decision and was not forced, nor is it enforced, so he should either grow the fuck up, and come back, or stay gone, and people should stop begging him for his return.

Whatever happens I wish the whole thing was just over with, I for one am sick of hearing about it. It harshs my mellow.

It also isn't Steve's fault that Fanusi is being a heat bag, drama queen.

Other Comments by Wosret

45. Comment #266599 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #266595 by Mitchell Gilks

It isn't anyone's fault that I can be a drama queen sometimes either.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #266600 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 19, 2008 at 11:57 am

Agreed, it's not Steve's fault Fanusi isn't here. I think Steve's comments have been very good on these issues. And importantly, Steve has shown he will change his mind on something when a convincing argument is put to him

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

47. Comment #266602 by Wosret on October 19, 2008 at 12:01 pm

And you know something has to be wrong when I'm the one telling someone to "grow up".

Other Comments by Wosret

48. Comment #266603 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Wait a tic. What do we want this writer to do? If we want her to condemn the death penalty for apostasy, we are asking her to become a koranic cherry-picker - a 'C of E Muslim', as it were. And we frequently pounce on cherry-pickers just as we do on fundamentalists.

Perhaps our attitude should be: if you DON'T believe in the tenets of your religion, then you are not in fact a Muslim yourself. Comes back to that True Scotsman business again.

Other Comments by j.mills

49. Comment #266605 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 12:12 pm

But anyway, back to the topic. Layla's post was thought-provoking. Perhaps this is progress. When we see people struggling with their consciences about matters like this - realising that defending certain practices is hard - it surely is a sign of hope, especially when violent Islam is called "warped".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #266610 by Quetzalcoatl on October 19, 2008 at 12:18 pm