Pharyngula

Posted by: Jackal | November 9, 2009 6:59 PM

I was going to ask what good it would do to send the petition to the Iranian Government. If a bunch of Western infidels are against it, Iran would be for it, right? But then I saw the recipient is UN Secretary General Mr Ben Ki-Moon.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 9, 2009 7:18 PM

A petition. To the Iranian government. That's like signing their death sentence...

Unfortunately I doubt anything will help... I'm disgusted. Such a lowlife country.

Posted by: Michael | November 9, 2009 7:29 PM

The title should read "Apostasy is punishable by death in Iran". Apostasy is certainly not a crime, punishable by death or otherwise, in Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, Mali and many other Islamic countries. Many of these countries do not have ideal records on human rights, and thier religious demographics are probably part of this, but this does not justify blanket villification of "Islamic countries" as if they were one homogenous entity hell bent on establishing a global caliphate. Yes, there are currently more frequent extremes of oppression in Islamic countries than in Western nations, but this does not tell us anything fundamental about the nature of Islam or Christendom or the West or the East. it is bizarrly taking religious fundamentalists word for it to assume that a counties religion on paper is the most important thing about that country.
That was quite a long rant for quite a short title, but it is a trend in liberals that recurres alarmingly frequently.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 9, 2009 7:39 PM

#2 If you're trying to imply that the fact that apostasy is "only" a capital crime in three Islamic countries, is somehow a good thing, you failed horribly.

Not only is capital punishment a barbaric, inhumane and archaic form of punishment, but that Iran thinks it's an acceptable punishment for the gay or rationality is disturbing on many levels.

While I bemoan the countless lives it's going to take before the country collapses, thankfully history teaches us that states such as this are unsustainable. Maybe it is true that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 9, 2009 7:42 PM

OK. A little background from an Iranian, your truly:
"Capital punishment" for apostasy is not in the Koran. However, it is in the Hadith (quotes from the prophet). While not all the Hadith is considered valid by all Muslims, boyh Shiite and Sunni clerics have upheld this. And yes, this has been enacted into Iran's penal code.
The majority of victims have not been freethinkers. Converting to a different religion is not tolerable for the control freaks in charge in Iran. On different occasions new converts to Bahaism or Christianity have been forced to recant.
Think of it this way: once you were raised (presumably) as Shiite Muslim in Iran, you are roped in. If you try to break loose you well may pay with your life.
And no, the "reformists" have never questioned that.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 9, 2009 7:44 PM

Darren Garrison #6

Snopes sees internet polls as a form of "slacktivism."

Slacktivism comes in many forms, but its defining characteristic is its central theme of doing good with little or no effort on the part of the person inspired to participate, through the mechanisms of forwarding, exhorting, collecting, or e-signing.

Posted by: felixthecat | November 9, 2009 7:58 PM

Let's get this out of the way first: "What about Christians?!? They are bad too!!!! We should talk about them Xians and whut they do!!!! And the Crusades!!!"

Of course the Koran demands the death penalty for apostasy. To assert otherwise is usually a deliberate falsehood. "But Felix, the Koran is a book of peace, idiot!!!" Yes, yes, calm yourselves; let us see about that: Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them." While only serious and legitimate scholars of the Koran argue that this means that apostates are to be put to death, a few proverbial ostrich types deny it, usually with eyes shut and making nuh-nuh sounds.

Posted by: Ellie | November 9, 2009 8:04 PM

Just adding my voice to those above saying that it is unhelpful to generalise across all Islamic states.

Sloppy language on this subject is potentially very dangerous and could well lead directly to the creation of new fundamentalists and militants.

Posted by: GeekGoddess | November 9, 2009 8:14 PM

Surah 2:217 They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Surah 4:89 They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. [b]Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war.[/b] You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.

From Tafsir al-Qurtubi, a classic and thoroughly mainstream exegesis of the Qur'an.

"Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent."

Sources: www.submission/org, citing "Authorized English Translation" among others.

From CRCC's website on the Hadith:

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated '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, say[b]ing, '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.'" [/b]

It may not be against the civil law, but it is written throughout the Quran and the Hadith support it.

Posted by: cyan | November 9, 2009 8:32 PM

one would hope that all discussing or viewing the the ethics or lack of ethics by the ethical society of chicago on that post will sign this petition, whether the petition will make a difference - at least it is something rather than nothing

If it were you, would you want people to just mentally shrug and pass it by as of no consequence?

Posted by: Conversational Atheist | November 9, 2009 8:45 PM

I have compiled a few sources regarding apostasy in Islam:

http://conversationalatheist.com/islam/apostasy-in-islam/

People should not be killed for thought crimes!

Posted by: Cujo359 | November 9, 2009 8:52 PM

Signed the petition, wrote an article. I don't know if it will do any good, but being as loud as possible is about all we can do.

Posted by: Captain patriot | November 9, 2009 8:56 PM

"People should not be killed for thought crimes!"

----------------

I agree. neither should they we arrested. However, thanks to the anti-American marxists in our government that is about to happen. Thought crimes are now illegal thanks to the so called hate crimes bill that just passed. So much for freedom. Looks like the marxists are winning ... for now.

Posted by: Jeb, FCD | November 9, 2009 9:01 PM

ANY theocracy deserves insult, ridicule, and vilification. That includes Israel, Iran, etc. Any country that acknowledges a flying space teapot as a basis for rule and governance is moronic, to say the least.

Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2009 9:13 PM

Quoting the Quran is a thoroughly useless way of establishing whether Islamic countries by and large execute apostates. People are idiots if they think that there aren't more apostates/atheists than there are headlines about their execution. Even in countries where the punishment is codified and formalized it's undertaken very little in practice. That doesn't even mean that most apostates keep their apostasy hidden. Read a damn Arabic/native language newspaper or watch Al-Jazeerah and you hear from them all the time- even if they're not specifically drawing attention to their beliefs or lack thereof. Their views are known, however and they typically are part of the opposition to most established politics. Of course Islamists are just as often part of the abuse as the leftists. Islamists are not created equal and they frequently get to rot in the same prisons as Marxists and communists. A lot of the Egyptian literature from it's most tumultuous periods reflects this (and is available in English). They also have harsh words for the British and Americans who to some extent knowingly or not- help perpetuate these systems. The most relevant titles elude me at the moment, but a decent start is "Beer in the Snooker Club" by Waguih Ghali. (He was the brother of UN secretary Boutros Boutros Ghali, if the name sounds familiar)

I'm not going to say that people have absolute freedom to do what they like and write what they like all over the Muslim world, but I'll be damned if it's as stark an depraved a situation as is frequently presented.

I actually have no real problems with this post and wasn't going to criticize it until I saw where the thread was going. Really the only issue I had was with the somewhat inaccurate title (a trope I've started ignoring because it gets tiresome pointing out the kind of trope it is) and the first phrase, an invocation to "Wake up people..." which I felt was vaguely Eurabia-paranoia-ish but then I've been having an argument with a BNP/Tea-party type so I'm just projecting on that count.

Meanwhile, the comment I was going to leave before I felt the need to address the other comments:

I've maintained and will continue to maintain that freedom in the Middle-East is more likely (but hey there are no guarantees) if we stop propping up dictators there. Granted Iran isn't a dictatorship, but revolutionary fervor has a funny way of spreading. I guess we'll get around to letting people resist their oppressive regimes when we're done needing critical resources. Meanwhile, we get to complain about how bad shit sucks over there! Yay!

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 9, 2009 9:38 PM

The lady cop should have put another 10 rounds into the Islamonazi to make sure the freak of nature was indeed dead. She shoud have shot him in the balls.

Because his thinking, like Captain "Patriot's," was centered in his nuts.

Posted by: a lurker | November 9, 2009 9:49 PM

Signing that petition is basically signing the death warrants for the "apostates." No thank you.

Posted by: R. Schauer | November 9, 2009 10:50 PM

Captain patriot
I've never seen you post here so you be unaware of the dungeon. PZ has a place where you are no longer allowed to post here, permanently. He electronically cuts you off...and from your disrespectful post above, he probably will do just that.

That being said, your marist remarks, I feel, indicate you don't have a clue about who was protesting the Vietnam war. Some of those marxist protesters you mention above were Vietnam vets...not exactly my idea of "marxist." In the future you may wish to use another term there.

Moreover, you probably will be hard-pressed to find another blog-group that is more consistant than the folks here. This group is largely scientists, writers, educators and other learned people who eschew religion and much of the violent behaviors that those religions bring. An exceedingly thoughtful and rational group read and post here many, formerly, from all branches of religion.

Additionally, I think it would be difficult to find anyone here who thinks any form of lasting peace is going to come from the barrel of a gun or the belly of an aircraft or the business-end of a missle...or from a country of uneducated, knee-jerk, half-wits such as yourself. So please excuse us as we diligently work toward eliminating from our great nation and the World, dim-witted, cannon fodder such as you. Thanks!

Posted by: Doubters | November 9, 2009 11:02 PM

#32 Sarah, you're not giving your Christian fundamentalists enough credit. I've seen the videos of their sermons, the only reason they haven't acted out their crazier doctrines is because they are illegal. If that ever changes they're just as dangerous.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | November 9, 2009 11:03 PM

Captain patriot: an embarrassment to actual captains and patriots. Probably thinks Karl Marx was just the brother that was the least funny (except for Zeppo. He was funnier than Zeppo).

Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2009 11:09 PM

Me @29

Granted Iran isn't a dictatorship, but revolutionary fervor has a funny way of spreading

YEESH! I can't believe I wrote that. Supposed to be,

"Granted Iran isn't a dictatorship we're propping up, etc., etc."

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 9, 2009 11:30 PM

"And yeah, being Kurdish absolutely guarantees you will be punished much harder than members of other ethnic groups, regardless what you have done or are accused for, in all countries of that region."

The Kurds are considered heretics by Jews, Christians and Muslims, and have been the excuse for all manner of mischief. When Bush and his minders yammered about Saddam's "gassing his own people", it was the Kurds they were talking about.

Ironically, the death toll it took Saddam a quarter-century to achieve was surpassed by George W. Bush in under two years -- and that's with counting the Iran-Iraq war death toll into the mix.

Posted by: Tulse | November 10, 2009 12:01 AM

By the way, where are your letters of protest to Obama about the Islamofascist terrorist who just commited treason (and should be hanged) at Ft. Hood? It happened on Obama's watch.

Where were your letters of protest to Bush when Islamofascist terrorists flew planes into skyscrapers and killed 3,000 Americans? It happened on Bush's watch.

Posted by: raven | November 10, 2009 12:31 AM

At least Xian extremists, biblical literalists, no longer take seriously (or at least very very rarely) the passages in the bible that command them to stone adulterers to death, kill anyone who breaks any commandment, keep slaves, etc. Compared to Islamicists, Xian extremists are downright progressive. (Pansy-assed liberals!)

That correct circumstance that fundies can't kill anymore has zero to do with fundie Death Cultists not taking seriously the biblical injunctions to slaughter people for a whole bunch of things.

There is a whole group of fundies, most of them in fact, the Xian Dominionists/Reconstructionists who would do all of the above if they could. They say so frequently. The founder of modern Xian Dominionism, Rushdooney, proposed biblical law that would have resulted in 99% of the US population being killed by the other 1%. He was very disappointed that it never happened.

What keeps the fundie cultists from slaughtering tens of millions of people is real simple. We no longer let our religious kooks run around loose. They can't stone people to death, burn witches, or field armies with heavy weapons. They do anyway sometimes, Xian terrorism and Xian human child sacrifice are still serious problems in the USA.

In times past, being an atheist or being from the wrong religion or wrong sect could and frequently did get you killed by xians. One of the bloodiest wars in history was the Reformation wars, which flickered on and off for 450 years and ended a whole 9 years ago in N. Ireland. Pogroms of Jews and Moslems were common not that long ago. Bruno Giordano was burned at the stake for advocating Heliocentrism. No one knows how many witches were burned, estimates range towards 100,000. Xianity has so much blood dripping from it that any account would take pages and pages.

Yeah, the Moslems have a problem. At least our ancestors suffered through it and shoved that devil into the box so we only have to watch our backs in case some group of xians like the fundies decide to go back to their good old days. Why in the hell do you think they are called Death Cultists?

Posted by: raven | November 10, 2009 1:21 AM

Captain Schizophrenic;

Where were you people when the Soviet Union thugs and communists slaughtered millions?

Virtually all of us hadn't been born yet. You do realize this is 2009 and Eisenhower is no longer president?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 10, 2009 3:43 AM

-Part of what really fries me about Islamic extremism is that it makes Xian extremism look good in comparison.-

The fundies are merely jealous that they can't get away with this.

Posted by: Snoof | November 10, 2009 6:02 AM

Captain Patriot:

Hmmm... not bad. Six out of ten. Your rapidfire blast of baseless assertions was well done, but I'm afraid you were too lucid. Not enough spelling errors, and you didn't use allcaps. Also, I'd have recommended accusing the liberals of also being witches, homosexuals and/or aliens.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 10, 2009 6:25 AM

Unfortunately those are the sorts of laws that can be expected when the general public accept the ridiculous claims to knowledge and truth which are made by religions. I still hope things will improve in Iran though; even before the revolution many educated people had aspired to a secular government and it can certainly be achieved. Turkey has a secular structure (though like the USA it is infested with people pushing a religious agenda) but despite its many problems, Turkey has demonstrated that a country with a predominantly muslim population can have a secular government. I'm sure the catholic church still misses the good old days when they could easily have people murdered for apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, and so on. It took about 1000 years for Europe to largely shed the shackles of blind devotion; hopefully the rest of the world doesn't take that much longer again because fanaticism and modern technology don't go well together. I am at least encouraged by progress in the educational institutions of some of the emirates; some like Saudi Arabia are very much fundamentalist but we may see that change in a few generations.

Posted by: Marsbar | November 10, 2009 6:51 AM

I'm so lucky that I don't live there. I would encourage any reasonable minded people who live in Iran who are able to get out of the country to do so now.

Would banning Iran from the olympic games and other international events such as the soccer world cup do any good? Probably not, and in fact it could possibly even make the situation worse. However I believe that such a country does not deserve to be a participant in international sporting events.

On a slightly different note, my brother in law said that in the future (can't remember how many years he said) it is likely that many of the countries in Europe will be dominated by Islam. I sure hope his prediction turns out to be wrong.

Posted by: Mack | November 10, 2009 7:25 AM

Apostasy is punishable by death in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yeman, Qatar, Somalia, Afghanistan, Mauritania and parts of Nigeria, the parts under Sharia law. Blasphemy, not specifically addressed as apostasy, is punishable by death in Pakistan. Apostasy is also against the law, though not necessarily punishable by death, in Malaysia and Algeria.
Although it seems that these cases are more political than religious, in that the men are being punished for being part of Kurdish political or militant groups, they are being executed under the umbrella of enmity against god, under which apostasy falls.
As a side note, did Captain Psycho, I mean Patriot, have a point about these executions, or was it really just mindless babble and ranting?

Posted by: mxh | November 10, 2009 7:37 AM

What good is it sending it to the UN? They'll just say that to say anything about it would be discriminating against religion.

Posted by: faithless | November 10, 2009 7:55 AM

@25 Captain Patriot:

If you think there are Marxists anywhere in positions of influence over the creation of US or of British legislation, then you clearly don't understand what Marxism is.

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 10, 2009 8:11 AM

I hope everyone has also signed petitions to end execution in the US, and wherever it is still practiced.

The United States does not execute people for being an atheist. That penalty is only for the worst crimes. I can understand why for some people execution for any reason is a bad idea, but if one of my close relatives (or myself) was murdered, I would want the criminal tortured first, and then executed.

Posted by: coathangrrr | November 10, 2009 8:32 AM

Where is it that it says they were accused of being atheists or of committing apostasy? The enmity against religion charges seem to stem from attacks against Clerics and other religious figures. Do we actually know that these folks are even atheist?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 10, 2009 8:41 AM

...but if one of my close relatives (or myself) was murdered, I would want the criminal tortured first, and then executed.

Which is why the strength of a victim's feelings should not be the rationale for sentencing.

Why not have the death penalty for rape? Attempted murder (after all, failure to succeed is all that separates it from the actual act)? Robbery? Assault with a deadly weapon? Conspiracy to commit terrorism? Where to stop? What is the difference?

The death penalty is simply state-sanctioned murder (and a useless deterrent). Why is it right to kill a murderer, but wrong to kill someone equally guilty of offending the law by another crime?

Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 10, 2009 8:50 AM

I'm sure Iran trembles in the light of an online petition.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 10, 2009 9:26 AM

-The United States does not execute people for being an atheist. That penalty is only for the worst crimes.-

Like being in the wrong place at the wrong time without an alibi.

Posted by: casismart | November 10, 2009 9:35 AM

Thank you Mr. Myers for posting this.

This is the facebook group to stopp the execution of Ehsan Fattahian:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=201235431220&v=wall&ref=ts

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 10, 2009 10:15 AM

Where were you when Saddam Hussein massacred thousands and tortured thousands? - Captain Patriot

Well, I certainly wasn't shaking his hand, like Donald Rumsfeld, or selling him weapons, like Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Enders | November 10, 2009 10:43 AM

@post 73: I wonder if Hitchens knows about those books?

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 10, 2009 11:53 AM

Cimourdain,

Point me at some evidence that these planned executions are for apostasy, if you have any. I know from past experience that you are a shameless liar, so it would need to be from a reliable source.

I have read a number of articles - although no books - on Islamic law. This is of course irrelevant to whether these planned executions are for apostasy.

BTW, Iran is planning on sharing those nukes with their good friends, the twice-genocidal government in Khartoum.

Evidence for this claim? Again, must be from a reliable source.

Posted by: kermit | November 10, 2009 12:32 PM

caPTaiN pAtRIot:

Where were you when Lt.Col. Ollie North sold weapons to Iran, in order to send money to terrorists in Nicaragua, in order to overthrow a democratically elected President? Why do you hate law and order so much? Why do you hate democracy? Why do you love Islamic dictators so much?

Just curious.

Posted by: Kenny Wyland | November 10, 2009 1:00 PM

Executing these prisoners is definitely wrong, but isn't God kind of a red herring here? There were some political assassinations carried out in their province and these guys were just picked to be killed as an example to deter others from fighting the govt. It really doesn't have anything to do with religion, they are just using that because they don't have any real charges against them.

Executing them is wrong, but I think framing this as a God issue isn't correct. (Don't worry, I'm an atheist, I'm not trying to defend religion.)

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 10, 2009 1:07 PM

Paul, and there we have it. Your fear of loosing your own self image is more important than what's happening, not just in Iran, but in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the Sudan Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world. You bandy the baseless accusation of xenophobia, ignoring the incredible diversity of those actually engaged in opposing this menace - including the authors I just cited. For the record, Sir, I have worked and studied alongside anti-jihadists from India and all over Africa, including Sudanese Christians who fled the genocide against their people, whom I imagine would be ridiculed amongst this crowd - the same crowd that has been primarily responsible to enabling genocide after genocide, and is now going to be responsible for letting Iran get nukes.

The reason, Sir, that I didn't bother to provide links about the facts of Iranian law is that anyone with access to the Internet who spends as much as half an hour studying this subject will know the truth. If you can't be bothered to do that, I can't help you. Your self-stultification is your own problem, not mine. I defy you to study the texts, tenets and rulings of Islam, including those of the Islamic Republic of Iran and come to any conclusion other than the obvious.

Posted by: Natalie | November 10, 2009 1:14 PM

Dave Dell @76 - you are correct. Capital punishment was actually used for many crimes until the mid-century civil rights movement and prisoners' rights movement. Someone was apparently executed for robbery in Alabama in 1964 - surprisingly, he was white. (But poor.)

The Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for rape in Furman v Georgia on the grounds that it was inconsistent. For some reason it can still apply to aggravated rape in 3 states (I'm assuming that's rape combined with some other felony). LA was applying the death penalty to child rape until the Supremes said no in 2008.

There is an interesting list at Wikipedia - the last executions for specific crimes, including piracy, horse stealing, slave revolt, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Crimes_subject_to_capital_punishment

Note that contrary to whatever captain patriot has heard, the US doesn't hang anyone anymore. Even the military uses lethal injection.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 10, 2009 1:23 PM

The death penalty for rape, and a host of lesser crimes was indeed the law in many southern states in my youth. These penalties, not surprisingly, were almost exclusively used against blacks. I recall something like 43 capital offenses in Georgia in the 50's? It's been 50 years but I think the gist of this is correct.

The death penalty has always disproportionately been applied to the poor and oppressed. Justice is almost always as good and as fair as the defendant can afford; rich or poor, neither case will get a just verdict, but the former will get the one the accused can pay for, and the latter the one that comes free.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 10, 2009 5:04 PM

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 9, 2009 11:30 PM The Kurds are considered heretics by Jews, Christians and Muslims, and have been the excuse for all manner of mischief. When Bush and his minders yammered about Saddam's "gassing his own people", it was the Kurds they were talking about.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 10, 2009 5:16 PM

Cimourdain has been completely unable to produce any evidence for the claim that the men referred to in the post are to be executed for apostasy, and so in his usual dishonest way is attempting to distract attention from this failure. I know, and indeed said, that Iranian law includes the death penalty for apostasy - but that does not mean this is why these men are threatened with execution, and the Amnesty International link says otherwise, as Paul noted. Ah, but I suppose AI are part of the ebil worldwide Muslin conspiracy Cimourdain has uncovered.

Cimourdain has also failed to support his claim that Iran intends to share "these nukes" (the ones that don't yet exist) with Sudan: the link he provides refers to "nuclear technology". Since the Iranian theocrats have consistently maintained that they have no intention of building nukes (and in this context it does not matter whether they are lying), the Iranian minister quoted was clearly not referring to nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 10, 2009 5:35 PM

Posted by: Brian Jordan | November 10, 2009 6:25 AM

@Steven Mading #16 but now imagine if you were born in a place like Iran, and you wanted to tell people you don't believe the religion you were taught and never did, but because they already falsely labelled you a Muslim before you had any say in the matter, you'll be treated as an apostate and nobody will believe you if you tell them you were never a believer in the first place.

Unfortunately, Islamists (I don't know whether it applies to Muslims in general) regard all human beings as being born Muslims. So anyone not a Muslim is automatically considered an apostate and can only "revert" to Islam, never convert.

Sorry for the swearing, but this issue really angers me, and it SHOULD anger everyone else too. The level of blatant lying being used to promote a propagandistic goal is fucking unbelievable.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 6:55 PM

Unless you know something I don't, which seems highly questionable your post taken into consideration, the last Marxist died in 1883.

I thought there were still a few in the political science departments of some ivy-league schools on the east coast. Or did they die of neglect?

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 11, 2009 6:09 AM

I've said before that I'm not interested in playing games. Few people get convinced by internet debates, and anyone who isn't willing to actually do the work of reading and research isn't going to be convinced at all. You can't force someone to think. As a demonstration of this point, let me quote two lines:

Paul

I'm still waiting for you to explain how studying "the facts of Iranian law" is in any way pertinent to the facts of the cases at hand.

So knowledge of Iranian law is considered irrelevant to a discussion about Iranian legal prosecution.

Since the Iranian theocrats have consistently maintained that they have no intention of building nukes (and in this context it does not matter whether they are lying), the Iranian minister quoted was clearly not referring to nuclear weapons.

If this means anything, it means we should take the Iranian leadership at its word - unless, of course, it's words make it look bad, in which case we should not do so, according to KG.

I rest my case.

I repeat, I urge people to actually do the reading for themselves. I should be surprised by the contempt for learning, reason and the scientific method on display by those paying it lip service, but I'm not. To those honestly wanting to get a grip on what's going on, those sources I cite provide an excellent overview.

----------------------------------------------------

Marcus

It's actually fairly reasonable to tar all the islamic states with one brush. Specifically, all the states that allow sharia law for muslims

Correct. The Shariah hasn't changed in a millenium.

Stephen

2 - Get people to stop blaming Islam for the political aims of the nations living under it.

Straw man, unfortunately. There's no distinction between religion and politics in Islam.

------------------------------

The reason I get ticked about this post is, as I said, this ridiculous "Wake up". As I said, I knew this, and so did everyone who has been paying attention.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 11, 2009 7:37 AM

Since the Iranian theocrats have consistently maintained that they have no intention of building nukes (and in this context it does not matter whether they are lying), the Iranian minister quoted was clearly not referring to nuclear weapons. - Me

If this means anything, it means we should take the Iranian leadership at its word - Cimourdain

I'm not sure if you're lying again here, or just being stupid. Let me assume the latter and spell it out for you. What you claimed was that Iran was going to transfer "nukes" i.e. nuclear weapons, to Sudan. Because the consistent public stance of the Iranian theocracy is that they have no intention of developing nuclear weapons, when its representative says it will transfer "nuclear technology" to another state, he cannot be taken to be referring to nuclear weapons, because that would undermine this public stance, whereas promising to transfer civil nuclear technology is completely consistent with that public stance, and with your link. Therefore your link is not evidence for your claim; and whether the theocracy is lying about their intention to develop nuclear weapons is not relevant in this context. Got it now, fuckwit?

I've said before that I'm not interested in playing games. - Cimourdain

Where, of course, "playing games" means providing evidence for your assertions. You still have not provided any evidence for the claim that the men referred to in the post are threatened with execution for apostasy. If, from your vast knowledge of Iranian law, you can show that "Enmity against God" means, exclusively or in these specific cases, apostasy (and is not, as Amnesty International and numerous other sources I've read in the past agree, a catch-all for activities including armed opposition to the regime and espionage), you will have proved your case. Go ahead.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 11, 2009 8:13 AM

What, like asking the Muslim guy who I share a lab bench with? - Bernard Bumner

Bernard, Bernard, if he shares your lab bench without blowing himself and the lab up, he's obviously not a True Muslim™!

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 8:29 AM

Bernard, Bernard, if he shares your lab bench without blowing himself and the lab up, he's obviously not a True Muslim™!

Still, maybe I should keep an eye on him, just in case... You know what They are like...

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 11, 2009 9:17 AM

Forgot to mention this, Martin. If you want to see screaming ignorance in action, you know this recently ghastly story with Major Nidal Malik Hassan? (incidentally, is Pharyngula going to mention this? If it was an abortionist shooting, there'd be a stampede, but because it's a Muslim...) Anyway, the braindead media is claiming that, because Hassan frequented strip clubs, he couldn't have been a devout Muslim. The sound you hear is me banging my head against a wall.

Posted by: Martin | November 11, 2009 10:32 AM

There is also a crass medial misrepresentation and a quite inproportional political treatment of hate crimes and of muslim crimes. At least in germany.

For example, there were about 28 deadly attacks from 1990 to 2009, which were motivated by right wing extremism/racism.
Right wing extremism and racism is combated with a lot of budget, personnel and every incident also raises quite a media ruckus, which is very good and as it should be.

However, in 2009 alone there were 16 documented "honor killings", in 15 cases the perpetrators (and often the victims) were muslims, mostly turks, one jordanian, one afghan. In one case the perpetrator was an italian christian.

In 2008 there were 22 cases. One Italian christian, one serbian christian. The rest were muslims.
One libanese, two Afghans,one Iranian, one Iraqi, the rest turks.

So, in the last TWO years alone, there were 7 MORE honor killing performed by muslims in Germany than there were deadly right wing attacks in nearly TWENTY years. And these are only the documented cases.

If you have a ratio of 35 muslim cases and 3 non-muslim cases, it becomes very clear, that this indeed very much an islamic problem.

However, this is massively misrepresented and underplayed in the media, as well as in politics and prevention.

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 11, 2009 11:29 AM

Paul,

Allow me to just say at the outset that your creepy racialist thinking needs some revising. It deeply saddens me that there are people who insist on thinking in terms of race and color, so let me just suggest you take a while to think on it. I mean, I don't know if you've taken a look at John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, Ibrahim Hooper, but you should. For your own good. Thinking of people as primarily defined by being "brown" or "white" or whatever is just not on nowadays.

Just on this, though:

Islamophobes,

I take it you wont mind if I start slamming you as a Christianophobe in the discussions that happen every other post here?

Posted by: Paul | November 11, 2009 12:08 PM

I take it you wont mind if I start slamming you as a Christianophobe in the discussions that happen every other post here?

If I take to lying about specific situations in order to slime Christians, instead of criticizing Christians for actual faults of theirs, I believe you would be justified in calling me a Christianophobe. The same would apply if, in talking about a Christian in prison for a crime (let's say burglary), I stated that he must be guilty of stoning his disobedient children since that is prescribed in the Bible.

Crap, I replied to Cimourdain before he starts engaging with the argument instead of throwing out non-sequiturs. I can only claim self-defense.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 12:23 PM

You might also be pretty surprised about some oppinions of your colleague, if you bother to ask him and/or discuss with him.

I have and do discuss such things, and he certainly holds some illiberal cultural attitudes, for instance about the role of women in society. However, he does not advocate violence towards women, apostates, non-Muslims, or anybody else. He is as baffled as I am by suicide bombers and terrorists.

I could describe many of the Muslims I know in similar terms. I live in a city with a very significant Muslim population, and there is very little tension between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Indeed, the particular part of the city with the highest concentration of Muslims is considered to be something of a destination for food, and the interaction is warm and welcomed by by all.

This is not some eutopia, but merely a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of people are actually fairly decent folk, who have very little desire to do anything other than live their lives and raise their families in peace. People tend to like people.

I know that there are significant factions within the Muslim community who wish for Sharia, and some who actively dislike western and westernised communities. These are sometimes the same people. Even some of those would like to perpetrate violence upon those with whom they disagree. Still, this is not a majority. As is the case with other religious groups, most people choose to ignore, or at least, don't act upon the worst dogma and doctrine.

Muslims are historically no worse than Christians, or any other religious group. What is happpening at the moment is that there is a dangerous reaction to perceived and real oppression of their fellows, along with a currently powerful extremist movement. Possibly, there has been a move towards extremist and fundamentalist Islam, but this is a trend, and one that may well be reversible.

On the subject of political Islam, I am much more concerned by the cosy relationship between the US administration and Saudi Wahhabists, than I am with their relationship to the Iranian regime, and certainly the average Iranian. I have worked with a number of Iranians, and have found them to be much more liberal and sympathetic and tolerant of western ideas than the rather ridiculous political rhetoric of their president might suggest.

The current relationship between the West and Iran seems very similar to that we had with the USSR during the Cold War. So how much of a threat do they really pose? One that is insurmountable, even in the face of hard-fought diplomacy?

...this Bernard chappie could also talk to my own lab partner, whose family fled the Sudanese genocide of her people. Of course, she's one of those "brown people", whom this lot don't seem to think of as real human beings, but they might still find such a conversation illuminating.

Fuck off silly troll/child/liar (pick any or all as appropriate), and come back when you can hold an adult conversation.

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 11, 2009 1:05 PM

I know that there are significant factions within the Muslim community who wish for Sharia, and some who actively dislike western and westernised communities. These are sometimes the same people. Even some of those would like to perpetrate violence upon those with whom they disagree. Still, this is not a majority. As is the case with other religious groups, most people choose to ignore, or at least, don't act upon the worst dogma and doctrine.

There is a shadow of a serious point here. Yes, of course, there are those Muslims who actively support Shariah and Jihad, and those who do nothing to stop it. This is one more example of why hard, solid book learning is necessary. One could start with, say, the Klemperer Diaries. What's interesting about those is the lack of Nazis. In fact, reading them cover to cover from 1933 to 1945, I can think of only two instances of actual Nazis being encountered, contrasted with the endless shows of kindness from ordinary Germans. That didn't stop 11 million being killed in the Holocaust.

Basic rule: when a society accepts certain moral premises, those who consistently act on those premises will succeed, even if they are a minority.

Now, in Islam, this minority isn't that minor. Even the most conservative estimates of the number of Muslims who support the Jihad places it at at least a hundred million, and it's probably two or three times that. That's far, far more support than the Fascists & Communists combined had.

This, however, is simply nonsense:

Muslims are historically no worse than Christians, or any other religious group.

Oh dear. See why I ask people to actually read? (Quaint concept for this generation, I know). Let's take the Witch Hunts. According to the most mush-brained Wiccan estimates, these killed about 100 000 people over three hundred and twenty years. Please. That's chump-change to Islam. The Spanish Inquistion killed fewer people in three and a half centuries than Muslims kill every year.

Here's Sam Harris:

"To be even-handed when talking about the problem of Islam is to misconstrue the problem. The refrain, “all religions have their extremists,” is bullshit —and it is putting the West to sleep. All religions don’t have these extremists. Some religions have never had these extremists. And in the Muslim world, support for extremism is not extreme in the sense of being rare. A recent poll showed that about a third of young British Muslims want to live under sharia law and believe that apostates should be killed for leaving the faith. These are British Muslims. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should be brought to justice. These people don’t have a clue about what constitutes a civil society. Reports of this kind coming out of the Muslim communities living in the West should worry us, before anything else about religion worries us."

Posted by: Martin | November 11, 2009 2:15 PM

@Occam's Machete: This is very sad and it makes me very angry.

@Paul: Dear Paul, everyone who even uses the islamofascist iranian propaganda term of "islamophobe", is an idiot. Or plain ignorant.

You might more correctly use Pat Condell's term of "islamonausea", if you need a term.

Posted by: Captain patriot | November 11, 2009 10:20 PM

Flame(or Lame) Duck

You comebacks are amusing but pointless.

Vietnam was a winnable war. The communist sypathizers and looser college professors (traitors) brainwashed the youth into organizing an anti-Communist movement. looks like it worked well. You guys haven't been quite right since the acid trips have you? What about the fascist freakshow America haters spitting at soliders returning from Vietnam? Were you with the soldiers or the fascist communist America haters on campus? Looks like McCarthy was right after all.

Besides, all of you are wrong about this Ft. Hood shooter. He was an islamic terrorist. period. Execute him for espionage and treason and move on. The only mistake made in this endeavor is that the cops didn;t ut 20 more rounds into his thick jihadist skull and save the taxpayers money on a trial. Wait, what trial? I hope the military places him before a firing squad on the first day of Rhamadan for his treason. The skank must pay for his islamofascist crapload.

As for Lee harvey Oswald, he was probably innocent. Everyone knows the CIA killed Kennedy.

As for my source on two million peple being murdered by Vietnam communists after we left, see the same source that says there are 600,000 homeless veterans in the U.S.

Media Mtters can really spill the shit can;t they? It's almost as if Paul Rubens is the major news anchor there.

Between communist and your leftist marxist utopia (which is blindly satanicly evil)and real traditional America, I'll take freedom any day of the week. I amnot afraid to stand up to fascist Islamonuts. If they fool with my family, they'll be shipped back to sandland in a small box in numerous peices with the box clearely marked "please bend, fold, and shit in as often as possible".

Hear about the Islamofascist terrorists in London who cuts women's faces for not wearing the proper headdress? Try that in my neck of the woods and see if you still have balls when we find you. Not only will you not have balls anymore, but your little mosque will be ashes and your precious Koran will be my toilet paper. Islamic shit will not happen to my family. if it does, payback is hell. I am not a fraid of raghead freaks. I fight back hard and without mercy. Otherwise, we loose the war on terror, like Obama is doing.

To everyone else:

NAH! not impressed with your acid trip recollections. Now go smoke some illegal and deadly, addictive pot and recollect yesteryear's songs of doped up America haters on a stage filthy, half naked, and now dead from overdose. Now, if you would only follow suit, we normal people could reclaim America again and win this war.

I can;t help it if you fear the ragheads. I don;t and I don;t care if they know it. What are they going to do? Maybe I'll go sleep with their 72 virgins.

Posted by: bonze | November 11, 2009 11:11 PM

Captain patriot #123

Vietnam was a winnable war.

Right! "We can win this war! Put the friendlies on boats in the South China Sea... nuke the whole damn country... and then sink the boats."

I was gonna cite this earlier, and the Captain has just pushed me into it:

    America!   FUCK YEAH!
       Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day YEAH!
    America!   FUCK YEAH!
       Freedom is the only way yeah!

America! Keeping Afghanistan Safe for Sharia Law since 2002!

Huh? Dammit, Afghanistan is landlocked! What of the formula for victory? Can we find a solution that does not involve boats?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 12, 2009 6:21 AM

Basic rule: when a society accepts certain moral premises, those who consistently act on those premises will succeed, even if they are a minority.

I'm not an accomodationist; I believe that the world would be a much better place without dogma and superstition. Both of these are the causes of and pretexts for violence, bigotry, and oppression. I also accept that mainstream religion is necessary for the proliferation of extremism.

Religion - all religion - should be shown for exactly what it is, and we should try to educate people to the point that they abandon irration superstition altogether.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that a large majority of Muslims are motivated more by their self-interest for a quiet life, than to acts of militancy.

We must be very clear about the challenges we face, and not cloud the issue by creating imaginary demons to slay.

Oh dear. See why I ask people to actually read? (Quaint concept for this generation, I know). Let's take the Witch Hunts. According to the most mush-brained Wiccan estimates, these killed about 100 000 people over three hundred and twenty years. Please. That's chump-change to Islam. The Spanish Inquistion killed fewer people in three and a half centuries than Muslims kill every year.

What I meant is that there is no more inherent violence in the Qur'an than in the Bible - both are inherently violent and discriminatory texts. There have been periods when Christianity has provided a pretext for violence, and we are now enduring a period where Islam provides a major pretext for violence. Now, I would say that the numbers game is a foolish one, because 1, 100, or 1 million deaths should be treated equally in magnitude. However, so-called honour killings are not necessarily connected directly to Jihadist terror plots, other than by the doctrinal source.

Clearly, the immediate solutions to those two threats have some commonality - education and deradicalisation, for example - but they also have unique challenges. It may be much easier to prevent intra-family killings via community outreach, to potential victims and would-be perpetrators. However, organised terrorism requires many other agencies and approaches. Foreign policy may also have some effect on fundraising and recruitment to terrorist organisations, but will not change social notions of honour.

The fact that the recent body-count may be greater for Islamist-perpetrated violence (although, lest we forget, God told George W. to invade Iraq), is really neither here nor there. This is a trend towards violence that is not particularly a historical one, but is much more recent and is to do with powerful Islamist organisations seeking, gaining, and maintaining totalitarian power over entire nations and cultural groups.

The problem is political as much as it is religious, and the solution will almost certainly be political. For instance, possibly the thing most approaching a solution in Iran will come via a new popular revolt. If the strangle-hold of the theocracy can be broken, then moderates and liberals may move the country back towards the mainstream. In doing so, there will necessarily be a move away from internal violence and also sponsorship of terror.

At that point, we might hope that Islam starts to become generally less literal - i.e. that those Muslims will cherry-pick doctrine, and ignore many of the worst parts. Secularisation is probably the best we hope for in the short-term, but then that is all we have in the West (or at least some approximation of it).

already, I don't think that it is very difficult to see the difference between Turkish mainstream Muslim Secularists and Somali Islamists.

Is Islam a violent faith per se? Only insofar as the Qur'an is a violent doctrine, but as is the Bible. This comparison is a good illustration of the fact that doctrinal interpretation on the basis of politics are much more important than what is actually written. Compare the average British Muslim to a Mujahadeen or Mutaween and there is a very obvious difference. Equally, compare a Church of England vicar to Fred Phelps, and there is a very obvious difference.

It seems very clear to me that there is a large majority of Muslims who are likely to be receptive to liberalisation of religious practices, and a signficant minority who will not entertain the idea. I say that because I believe that human psychology is similar throughout the world.

Turning Muslims into the new bogeymen is unhelpful and short-sighted. I can see absolutely no difference between the demonisation of Muslims now and that of Communists during the Cold War.

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 12, 2009 9:02 AM

I once again repeat what I've said about the necessity of reading. I'll take this in reverse order:

Turning Muslims into the new bogeymen is unhelpful and short-sighted. I can see absolutely no difference between the demonisation of Muslims now and that of Communists during the Cold War.

No one who ever had to spend ten minutes in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China would consider the Communists "demonized" by anyone but themselves. No one who read a single account of the survivors of those hellish systems could do so, either. Nor could someone who, say, spoke - as I have - with Sudanese survivors could consider this demonization.

I say that because I believe that human psychology is similar throughout the world.

Unfortunately - and here that reading thing I mentioned comes in - this is nonsense. People change deeply and fundamentally across time and space. This is a common error, begotten not by vice, but by virtue. The defeat of racism has been so successful in the West that people have forgotten the basic reason why racism was so widespread - the observation that different peoples can be very, very different. One of Darwin's brilliant insights - read The Voyage of the Beagle - was that the differences we observe are not linked to biology, but to culture.

Ironically, racism itself provides a perfect demonstration of this point. A century or so ago, virtually everyone was racist. Nowadays, we have completely changed from that - though racism persists in places like Ethiopia (try asking an Oromo about the Amhara).

The idea that there is a basic "human psychology" that can be equally applied to the Ayatollah Khomeni and Richard Dawkins is complete claptrap.

Compare the average British Muslim to a Mujahadeen or Mutaween and there is a very obvious difference.

This ignores the non-negligible numbers of British Muslims who are Mujahideen, and that thirty-three percent of British Muslims want Shariah law to govern the country and apostasy to be punished by death.

vEqually, compare a Church of England vicar to Fred Phelps, and there is a very obvious difference.

Ignores the fact that Fred Phelps's views would be Islamic mainstream, whereas they're the fringe in Christianity.

This comparison is a good illustration of the fact that doctrinal interpretation on the basis of politics are much more important than what is actually written

Ignores the unity of politics and religion in Islam, and that the Shariah hasn't changed in a millenium.

At that point, we might hope that Islam starts to become generally less literal - i.e. that those Muslims will cherry-pick doctrine, and ignore many of the worst parts.

Ignores the fact that virtually all Muslims are literalists, because the idea that the Qur'an is God's word - not the word of men inspired by God, as the Bible is considered, but the literal words of God Himself - is as central to Islam as Christ's Divinity is to Christianity. Yes, there are Muslims who don't know what's in it - there are Muslims who've memorized the Arabic Qur'an who can't speak Arabic - but the central faith is unchanged.

This is a trend towards violence that is not particularly a historical one

Ignores fourteen centuries of Jihad qitaal and genocide.

However, so-called honour killings are not necessarily connected directly to Jihadist terror plots, other than by the doctrinal source.

Ignores the fact that Jihad to spread Islamic rule isn't advanced solely by qitaal, or combat, but by cultural imperialism (Da'wah), economic measures etc.

lest we forget, God told George W. to invade Iraq),

Source of this story is Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian Authority's foreign minister.

Now, I would say that the numbers game is a foolish one, because 1, 100, or 1 million deaths should be treated equally in magnitude.

This is claiming that the common cold and Ebola are equivalent infections.

What I meant is that there is no more inherent violence in the Qur'an than in the Bible

This could only be written by someone who has never read both texts, has never studied their exegeses, never looked at how they have been put into practice throughout history. This is a statement of such staggering ignorance it's hard to know where to begin. Read Sam Harris on the subject, cited by me above.

To put it simply, there are Atheists for Jesus, but only a complete psychopath or ignoramus could be an Atheist for Muhammad. In fact, the last major Atheist for Muhammad was Adolf Hitler.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that a large majority of Muslims are motivated more by their self-interest for a quiet life, than to acts of militancy

Already answered above.

You see, this is why I keep harping on the need to read, and read thoroughly. There's no substitute. You need to have absorbed at least half-a-dozen top notch authors to get a grip on Islam, to really understand, probably twice or three times that many: Robert Spencer, Hugh FitzGerald, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bat Ye'or, Snouck Hurgronje, Andrew Bostom, Joseph Schacht, Raymond Ibrahim, Andre Servier, Christoph Luxenberg, Efraim Karsh, K.S. Lal, Jamie Glazov... And, of course, reading the Qur'an and a few tens or hundreds of Hadith, and good life of Muhammad would be useful. Taking the time to browse serious Islamic webistes (anyone paid attention to the helpful advice of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani? Just asking...) is also invaluable.

Once you've done that, you'll be spared from making the most basic mistakes.

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 12, 2009 10:30 AM

I've read many of the sources you quote, and I've talked to people of many faiths,

Leaving one of two conclusions. Either, 1) you're lying, because these are really primer level mistakes, or 2), as the adage goes, you can't make someone else think. You cannot force someone to use their brain, if they're determined not to.

Neither conclusion reflects well on you.

I am also not quite sure what your solution is? Nothing less than the destruction of Islam?

Correct. Don't see why this is controversial. Oh, wait, I remember: "wanting an end to religion" is okay only if its American Christianity in question; if it involves, you know, some controversy and some actual risk, then it's out. Can't have to do something difficult, now can we?

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 12, 2009 11:28 AM

It would appear that, against my better judgement, I've been dragged into one of these moronic games. In my post, I list no less than twelve errors, and, predictably, these have no effect. Go figure.

What I asked about is the destruction of Islam; how do you propose to dismantle Islam, if not with the consent and co-operation of (former-) Muslims and their descendants?

I already have their cooperation, or, to be more accurate, they already have mine: Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina.

Personally, the only realistic strategy that I can see is to educate the moderates and liberals (on the assumption that there is a correlation between education and the move towards liberal religiosity, then agnosticism and atheism) in the hope that the more illiberal will be pulled in the right direction. We also need to help to empower would-be secularists via good and hard diplomacy, because even if it was right and effective to do so, we could not effect regime change via force in every oppressive, murderous, totalitarian state.
(At the same time, we have to perform the fire-fighting activities to stop the worst excesses of religion and the religious.)

Not much to disagree with here. I'd phrase it that we need a vigorous, continuous campaign of cultural imperialism - on the radio, on the TV, on the internet, in the newspapers, magazines, books and so on the true nature of Islam, and the superiority of Western civilization needs to be hammered home, time and time again. It'd work, for one simple reason: we have reason on our side.

What I do disagree with is the idea that we need to push Muslims towards "moderation", whatever that is. I think a Muslim who starts questioning his faith is more likely to go for full, honest apostasy than some tortured compromise.

Posted by: Apostate | November 12, 2009 6:45 PM

You can read the Pakistan Apostasy Bill 2006 here:

http://www.thepersecution.org/50years/apostasybill.html

Excerpt from the bill:

Punishment for apostasy:- (1) If a male person makes the commission of apostasy offence, he shall be awarded death sentence.

Provided that if the apostate tenders penitence before issuance or at the time of death sentence or agrees to tender penitence, he shall be immediately produced before the court for further orders.

(2)If the female person makes the commission of apostasy offence, she shall be put in prison till she tenders her penitence.

Posted by: tresmal | November 12, 2009 9:01 PM

Is Captain Patriot DC or Marvel?

Posted by: baju | February 1, 2010 1:54 PM

These are sometimes the same people. Even some of those would like to perpetrate violence upon those with whom they disagree