…and this is a 
It's a tiny little island nation in the Indian Ocean, and it sounds like an interesting place. Unfortunately, the people there make it a hellhole.
In the Muslim-majority nation of Maldives, a man stunned an audience during questions and answers period in a lecture given by an Islamic cleric, by stating that he had chosen freedom of conscience not to follow Islam. The man, Mohamed Nazim, was promptly attacked, taken into custody, and has been threatened with death and beheading, or other punishments for choosing his freedom of conscience. Maldives media are reporting that it is the first time in many hundreds of years that a Maldivian has publicly renounced Islam, since Sultan King Hassan IX converted to Christianity in 1552 and was deposed.
Religion is an evil mind-rot with varying degrees of infection, but I think the worst of them all has to be Islam. What a nasty little superstition it is.
Here's a real twist, though: The Maldives is on the UN Human Rights Council. I like the idea of an international tribunal like the UN, but this is the kind of insanity that makes it a joke.
Nazim was taken into police custody for expressing his conscience, where he received "Islamic counseling" and threatened with execution. The fact that he has now reverted to Islam in the face of such dire oppression does not change the fact that he's got to be the bravest atheist alive.
Here's a video of the odious Zakir Naik addressing Mohamed Nazim's question. Theologians are all the same: he tries to turn it into an argument that god must exist, because otherwise there is no reason to have morality. Naik is a moron.
He does back off from insisting that Nazim be put to death, saying that there's a difference between leaving the faith and advocating against the faith; the latter warrants killing the apostate, but not necessarily the first.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Mouse
|
June 28, 2010 8:33 AM
This man's action makes my momentary discomfort with speaking up for the freethought perspective among coworkers seem downright cowardly.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 8:37 AM
To learn more about the context, I highly
recommend Ibn Warraq's "Leaving Islam: Apostates speak out".
The island is paradise and hell in one.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 8:38 AM
Once again we are reminded that the expression 'religion of peace' is, in fact, an oxymoron.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
June 28, 2010 8:38 AM
I think the next atheist bus campaign should say "Scream all you want. It won't make your god any more existant".
That's repetitive and redundant. And missing a "was".Posted by: Marella
|
June 28, 2010 8:45 AM
Islam scares the crap out of me. The 'religion of peace' will never be satisfied until we're all under the yoke of it s evil insanity. And NO BACON!!
Posted by: mxh
|
June 28, 2010 8:50 AM
"Islamic counseling" must be like re-education of homosexuals by christians.
Too bad, I kind of wanted to visit the Maldives before it gets eaten up by the Indian Ocean (at its highest, it's 2.3 meters above sea level).
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
June 28, 2010 9:04 AM
Where's the human rights petition to get that man the hell out of the Maldives and give him asylum in a non-batshit country?
Posted by: davelnewton
|
June 28, 2010 9:12 AM
Meh. It's not Islam itself, it's the Muslims that cling to specific interpretations. Just as most of the Christians I know aren't douchebags about it, neither are most of the Muslims I know.Posted by: co
|
June 28, 2010 9:13 AM
I don't know if this has been posted here, or linked to from here, but here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xz8Z6KqR3w
Posted by: bubbabubba666
|
June 28, 2010 9:17 AM
"The fact that he has now reverted to Islam in the face of such dire oppression does not change the fact that he's got to be the bravest atheist alive."
He is a brave and heroic man period. Can we start a Pharyngula donation fund to get him the hell out of that country?
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 28, 2010 9:18 AM
Eppur si muove.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 28, 2010 9:24 AM
That guy has a shitty beard
Posted by: Roestigraben
|
June 28, 2010 9:25 AM
So are Libya, Saudi Arabia, China and Uganda. The same body is also at the forefront of clamoring for laws against blasphemy and criticism of religion. It has always been a joke and will likely remain that way.
Posted by: Squiddhartha
|
June 28, 2010 9:29 AM
I spent 5 weeks in the Maldives for a work project in 1999. The islands are gorgeous, the climate beautiful, the people welcoming and friendly. The arthropod life is a little... over-enthusiastic.
It struck me as one of the most relaxed possible Muslim nations, as the main effect I saw of the religion was restrictions on what one could carry into the country -- no religious symbols (no problem!), alcohol (I can cope), pork products (I don't tend to pack bacon), or pornography (no sweat, it's a work trip). Long-time non-Muslim visitors can get permits for alcohol, or visit the resort islands (primarily staffed by Sri Lankans) where alcohol is served. I never saw a burqa, and in fact the ladies' fashions were quite flattering. Many of the people helping us with the project were women, so education was not an issue. To be honest, I'm not sure of the stance on women driving, since the islands are small enough that cars are rather pointless (though present).
So, without defending in the least the atrocious treatment of Mohamed Nazim, or religion in general, or Islam in particular, I can't really sign on to calling the place a "hellhole."
Posted by: PeteJohn
|
June 28, 2010 9:33 AM
Here's what I want to see in response to this, or any, example of extreme religion. The people who are more reasonable Muslims need to be the one condemning this the loudest. If they don't want to be lumped in with these people, they need to make it known that this kind of nonsense doesn't speak for them. It won't happen though. There will be some people who play the Religion of Peace card, or others who will weakly back the kid with a "Well, they're wrong, but then again..." response, or some will just ignore that this ever happened. It's the same every single time we here of some form of extremism from the Muslim world, and I think it's high time that so-called Moderate Muslims decide if they're for civilization and the modern world or against it.
Posted by: Nineveh
|
June 28, 2010 9:34 AM
@davelnewton: no, it's pretty clear in Mohamed's own words: kill nonbelievers, kill apostates, and kill those who refuse to become Muslim. It takes true mental acrobatics to turn that into another "interpretation", especially considering Mohamed himself waged wars, murdered his enemies, forced conversions, and fucked little girls...and boys. Islam is unquestionably the nastiest religion.
Man, this guy has HUGE balls.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
June 28, 2010 9:41 AM
Global warming will solve the Maldivian problem soon enough.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
June 28, 2010 9:42 AM
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm
Maldives not the worst of the lot.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 9:43 AM
Islam...does the fun ever START???
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 9:44 AM
dravelnewton, are you an Islamic scholar? On what authority are you claiming Muslims should stick to your interpretation of their faith, rather than, you know, prophet mohammad's?
Apologist stupidity knows no bounds.
Posted by: clausentum
|
June 28, 2010 9:45 AM
Oh, so it's now ok to say that: I've been called out as a bigot round here for saying just that (and I was always very careful to distinguish between Islam and Muslims). If one wanted to be fair to Islam, one could add that there may have been worse religions in the past, or even extant religions which are worse but less prominent, but here and now, Islam seems to be going for the prize.Posted by: Scorpy1
|
June 28, 2010 9:46 AM
PBS Now (good current affairs program, but sadly canceled) had an interesting piece on the islands a while back:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/548/index.html
The islands are facing extreme tsunamis and were asking for UN help to displace their populace.
It has been going on for years, but after this.....I must admit to losing some sympathy.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
June 28, 2010 9:47 AM
And heedless, unsustainable breeding in other muslim countries will take care of the rest (unfortunately at a great cost of years of misery, starvation and war - all for the glory of allah).
Posted by: Balstrome
|
June 28, 2010 9:47 AM
Strange this is that western generated climate change will sink their intolerant little island and no amount of head banging towards Allah will change this.
Posted by: toth
|
June 28, 2010 9:49 AM
Uh oh, PZ, you criticized Islam. That makes you a racist, like Pat Condell!!1 For shame!!1111one
Posted by: MarkNS
|
June 28, 2010 9:52 AM
I just send the following email to the President of the Maldives via his website(nfo@presidencymaldives.gov.mv ). Yeah, I know he won't get it but at least his lackies will.
Dear Sir or Ma’am,
Your website states “President Mohamed Nasheed has always maintained that freedom of expression is the key to heyo verikan - democratic good governance.” While this is a laudable statement, I am concerned that it does not truly reflect the policies of the Government of the Republic of the Maldives.
I came across this story while researching the Maldives on the web: http://www.realcourage.org/2010/05/mohamed-nazim/
How can you claim to allow freedom of expression if a citizen is not allowed to express their own religious beliefs or lack of belief? When I later discovered that the Maldives was recently awarded a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, I was shocked. A nation that would deny the most basic human right, that of free expression, should have no say in safeguarding human rights around the globe.
How do you justify your oppressive religious laws in view of your stated respect for human rights?
Sincerely,
Posted by: CE
|
June 28, 2010 9:53 AM
America is on the Human Rights Council too? They haven't exactly set a high standard for membership.
Posted by: cosmas
|
June 28, 2010 9:53 AM
@Squiddhartha: Hellhole is a state of mind. The US (Kansas) was a hellhole for me when being gay was a deportable offense enforced by the INS. @ the time Fred Phelps was sending blanketing faxes outing gay health worker (like me). So As an Arab ex-Muslim gay person may I suggest that Hellhole is where one's freedom of conscience is restricted by enforceable laws. Eppur si Muove (Thank you Moggie for a great idea for a new tattoo)
Posted by: andycwb
|
June 28, 2010 9:55 AM
The irony, of course, is that the biggest source of revenue for the Maldives is tourism. Selling delicious food washed down with the beers and wines of your choice to us decdent Westerners.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 10:01 AM
CE#27: sure, there are things that could improve here. On the other hand I forgot when the last public flogging or stoning happened in the US.
Posted by: te24hours
|
June 28, 2010 10:05 AM
How do you know he's an atheist? He only renounced islam. That means nothing about his faith. You are as arrogant as the pope.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 10:06 AM
#30: Unless you count flogging the bishop...then it happens millions of times a day.
Posted by: CE
|
June 28, 2010 10:07 AM
And I can't remember the last time the Maldives worked to destablize democracies, funded oppressive regimes in Latin America and Asia, supported the continued propagation and use of indiscriminate and inhumane weaponry, and engaged in a policy of diplomacy by force.
You'd think people have never seen the list of US vetoes of UN resolutions before.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 28, 2010 10:14 AM
How do you know he's an atheist? He only renounced islam. That means nothing about his faith. You are as arrogant as the pope.
Why, yes, you are so correct. Atheists make it a habit to hide atheist child rapists from punishment and complain when law enforcement raid official atheist records.
This kind of false equivalency is moronic and pointless.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 28, 2010 10:15 AM
I'm not advocating US inclusion on the human rights council, either. We should have been kicked out on the basis of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo alone.
Posted by: Lars
|
June 28, 2010 10:18 AM
I suspect, if held to the standards we'd like, the human rights council would be depressingly empty.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 10:19 AM
You are plain ridiculous, CE.
Did you notice the common thread in the list you made? It is about Foreign Policy. I am not trying to defend everything on that list. But there is a (I would think) clear difference between having an aggressive foreign policy (which, let's face it, the Islamic nations did for centuries, while they could) and treating individual human beings as slaves: if by accident of birth you happen to be born to Muslim parents, you are lucked in for life. You can never leave, on pain of death.
Incidentally going off on a diatribe against the US is the oldest line of apologetics in favor of Islamic atrocities. You may want to come up with something new.
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 28, 2010 10:22 AM
After looking at that list of UNHRC members I'm left to wonder how Yemen, North Korea, and Myanmar got left out.
It seems that council membership is more often a political blocking move than an honest attempt to defend human rights. I really wish the U.N. were not such a bad joke.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 28, 2010 10:31 AM
Actually, if you listen to Nazim's question, he doubts religion, generally. Naik is the one who then narrowed it to a question of whether he renounced Islam.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 10:31 AM
Spectacular way of missing the point: we’re not concerned whether he’s an atheist, we’re addressing the basic human right that Islam denies him – the freedom to openly change his mind.
Yes the implementation of the punishment for apostasy varies markedly around the Islamic world, but in case you didn’t notice, what this guy is guilty of is a thought crime (in Orwell’s terms), and the punishment is totally out of proportion to the alleged offence.
Posted by: mxh
|
June 28, 2010 10:56 AM
Zakir Naik is an arrogant dumbass (hey, that describes pretty much anyone who pushes their religion on others).
Posted by: Schenck
|
June 28, 2010 10:57 AM
Notice how "Dr." Naik tries to hedge the death penalty iss, he says that its not always the case, that the person has to be spreading whatever he converts to (and he seems to totally miss the idea that this guy doesn't buy into any religion), he tries to make it sound like there is some reasonable position within the rules, its just that 'western books' et al have misrepresented the islamic position.
And then the police arrest the guy and state that the penalty for apostasy is death.
So the Doc is simply wrong, whatever he says, the penalty is death.
Posted by: sheik.djibouti.al.nayt
|
June 28, 2010 10:57 AM
Naik to Nazim:
Heh.
Posted by: asidity
|
June 28, 2010 11:02 AM
Indeed. Naik tells the questioner to read "proper books about Islam" even though he states clearly in his question that he's read the Quran. What, according to Naik, is a more proper book about Islam than the Quran itself? Don't Muslims believe that the Quran is God's unadulterated word?Posted by: CE
|
June 28, 2010 11:03 AM
@37
I'm ridiculous? Who here is the Hitchensesque Islamophobe again? Being an atheist does not grant you innate moral superiority, my unique, little snowflake. Yes, it may free you from the most vile of religious dictates, but it doesn't make you any less susceptible to tribalism, racism, classism, or nationalism. By grouping all Islamic majority nations into a single, reviled other, you ignore each individual nation's rich and varied history. While this sort of ignorance certainly simplifies your callous othering of Islamic peoples, it certainly doesn't make for a clear understanding of Middle Eastern relations or good diplomacy. Past injustices on the part of a group does the justify retribution against their modern day descendants. Especially not the collective hatred and punishment of only-tangentially related nations.
Islam certainly allows for the propagation of certain human rights abuses, but blaming religion for a country or countries' social ills is a gross oversimplification. Economic disparities, corruption of government, oppression by or conflict with local or foreign powers, education, and quality of life are often far better explanations (and again tribalism, racism, classism, or nationalism).
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 11:20 AM
Ooh, CE. You are even more ridiculous than I thought originally.
" Being an atheist does not grant you innate moral superiority". However, having been raise as a Muslim, having had to study the Koran and the Hadith for many years, and having seen how the sharia is enforced in action, does qualify me to comment on Islam and criticize it.
"Blaming religion for a country or countries' social ills is a gross oversimplification." Classic strawman attack. I am not blaming all the social ills on religion. I am only blaming human rights abuses prescribed in the Koran and hadith on religion. Even the poorest non-Islamic nations do not have public flogging on the books as a remedy for drinking alcohol, or stoning for converting to a new religion. I couldn't post what I am saying now back home without fearing for my life. So all the human right abuses in the islamic world should go unchallenged because speaking out would hurt you sensitivities? How about the vicitms? They deserve no protection because of where they happen to be born? Who is the racist one now?
Are you claiming none of these abuses have anything to do with religion? How many years have you spent studying Islam? And you call me the ignorant one?
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 28, 2010 11:23 AM
And here I thought this was gonna be about the islands fast being lost to the rising oceans. I'd just made the mistake of assuming that'd be a loss*.
*Though of course there may well be a great many interesting native species worth saving. Any chance we can equip them all with stilts as a stop-gap measure?
Posted by: eleusis
|
June 28, 2010 11:26 AM
Nazim said: "I deeply apologize for that to all the Maldivians. Along with that, I would like to say that the major misconceptions I had regarding Islam have been clarified."
The major misconception appears to be that you can leave Islam without being executed.
Posted by: skjaeve
|
June 28, 2010 11:27 AM
Moderate muslims are frequently upset that they're “required” to speak up against the actions of extremist muslims. It's an “if you're not against them, you're with them” argument, and I can understand them being unhappy about that.
As for what it says in the Quran, I haven't read it myself, but isn't that comparable to the quite explicit lists of people to kill found in the Old Testament?
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 11:27 AM
Incidentally, what is story with "hitleresque islamophobia"? Did it miss it when Geert Wilders, Pat Condell, or Nicolas Sarkozy murdered 6 million people?
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 28, 2010 11:36 AM
The extremists mostly claim to act on behalf of Islam (same applies to other religions). Not "extreme Islam", not even, for the most part, their own particular sect. It is always "Islam".
When someone speaks and/or acts and claims to do it on your behalf, in a manner you do not approve of, if you do not follow by speaking up and denounce them, then you ARE responsible for condoning by omission what they say and do.
No, you're not "required" to speak up, but freely choosing not to speak is freely choosing to assume your share of that responsibility.
So if you're unhappy about being lumped in your silence with extremists you don't want to be associated with? Well tough. The world's not fair. Next time grow a spine and speak up for your ideals.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 11:43 AM
"As for what it says in the Quran, I haven't read it myself, but isn't that comparable to the quite explicit lists of people to kill found in the Old Testament?"
It is. The problem is, among Christians and Jews, the belief that the scripture is inerrant exists, but it is a relatively uncommon. (Well, we know what Puritan Mew England was like).
Among muslims it is close to universal.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 28, 2010 11:54 AM
Irrelevant tu quoque argument.
I don't think anybody is saying that. It's also a shift from your original point @33.
To be fair, CE said "Hitchensesque", as in Christopher Hitchens.
Posted by: Captain Black
|
June 28, 2010 11:56 AM
"He(Zakir Naik) does back off from insisting that Nazim be put to death, saying that there's a difference between leaving the faith and advocating against the faith; the latter warrants killing the apostate, but not necessarily the first."
Naik was due to spread his idiocy in the UK, my home city of Sheffield, until the government realised he was an advocate of terrorism.So hopefully he is banned from coming to the UK for now.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 12:07 PM
Sorry, my mistake.
As for Hitchens, I certainly don't agree with him on everything.
Yet "islamophobia hitchens style" reminds me of his coming out in favor of Salman Rushdie, when the latter was supposed to death for apostasy, by ayatollah Khomeini.
And I second that.
Posted by: CE
|
June 28, 2010 12:16 PM
No they're not saying it. They're just coincidentally implicating Islam as the foundation of these nations' human rights difficulties. That specific abuses arise from adherence to fundamentalist Islam is not in question. However, treating Islam as the defining factor in these nations failings plays into the U.S. narrative of an Islamic threat to world peace, and encourages our citizens to tacitly accept our belligerent stance in the Middle East. It also ignores the role the United States government and its economic arms, the World Bank and the IMF, in precipitating the rise of fundamentalist groups to power.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 28, 2010 12:17 PM
MarkNS @ # 26: Dear Sir or Ma’am, ...
An odd salutation for any message to a president named "Mohamed" - did you choose this just to yank his chain?
Posted by: CE
|
June 28, 2010 12:26 PM
It's not an irrelevant tu quoque because I'm not claiming criticism of Islam is invalid. I'm claiming that nationalist anti-Islamic dialogues color our criticism of nations such as the Maldives, diverting us from productive analyses of socioeconomic disparities, excarberated by U.S. intervention, that radicalize the population.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 12:38 PM
As it turns out though, in many cases of Islamic radicalism, placing the attention on socioeconomic disparities means taking your eyes off the prize-religious motivation.
It turns out in many cases, not least Bin Laden himself, economic factors are simply nonexistent.
What reason would US based Muslims, not even of Somali descent, have to go to Somalia and join the fighting? Can it be anything other than ideology? How long can we turn a blind eye at the problem staring us right in the face?
Posted by: raven
|
June 28, 2010 12:45 PM
Why would anyone convert to Islam? In some versions, leaving the faith is a killing offense. It isn't enforced much anymore but the Moslems can still make the apostates miserable.
At least in xianity and most other religions, you can change your mind and get out alive. Not that it is always easy, leaving some sects can cost you your mate, children, and friends (e.g. JW.).
Not that this is due to anything about xianity. Being an apostate, heretic, or atheist could get one killed not so long ago. Those mean old secular authorities took away their guns, ropes, and stacks of firewood.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 12:59 PM
Apostasy laws are still on the books in Iran.
(And no, it is not America's fault, like CE would tell you).
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
June 28, 2010 1:10 PM
@25 toth-
Racism can be an issue when going after Islam. How about "the Maldivian problem" (hznfrst@17)? The structure of that phrase ring any bells? Of course, most of the posts on this thread I enjoy, agree with completely, and don't see as racist, but there's a few that creep me out...
As much as Pat Condell tries to smack it away, racism keeps smiling and winking at him, because it finds so much agreeable about his views. I did watch every one of that guy's videos, and at this point (the sorta-near-ground-zero-mosque objection), I'm done. In all the criticism of that plan, there's a lot of bold assertions and practically no supporting facts. Is it being bankrolled by Wahhabists? Nobody's bothered to tell me any real information that might convince me it's trouble, either because they are too lazy or there isn't any.
And the Islam vs. South Park issue: I fully support the South Park side, Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, and so on. But the evil Islamic threat has been vastly overstated in this case. One website run by the American moslem equivalent of the Encyclopedia Dramatica crew turned into invading assassins in the minds of the public. Why?
Well, we're all racist. I'm racist. Babies are racist. It's a natural predisposition that makes us easy to manipulate, which is why we have to ask ourselves regularly if it's coloring our perceptions in any given issue. And with Islam, it usually is.
That said, Islam has far more than its share evil religious douchebags these days. It's still fair to say, at the moment, "...the worst of them all has to be Islam." Death for apostasy? And there's people who will defend that? Insane.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 28, 2010 1:11 PM
@CE
While there are underlying problems that trigger extremism, people on this thread have gone out of their way to compare muslim and non-muslim countries that have similar economic and social difficulties. Don't treat us like we're single-minded and incapable of seeing beyond religion. Theocracy in any form is a serious problem, and the nastiest theocracies are islamic in nature. I think we can take a multi-pronged approach, but I think ignoring religion is as bad as focussing solely on it.
Posted by: CE
|
June 28, 2010 1:12 PM
You're claiming bin Laden's case is isolated from U.S. intervention? Seriously?
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 28, 2010 1:16 PM
This hits the point - theocracies are, in general, shitty. Most current theocracies are Islamic(as far as I'm aware at least), therefore Islam comes out looking worse than other religions who've had their theocratic heydey and thankfully declined - I'm not convinced that Islamic theocracies today are particularly worse than Christian theocracies of yesteryear (or select your death cult of choice theocracies of prior to that)
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 28, 2010 1:17 PM
@62
You forgot the part where people died or had serious threats brought about them because of cartoons of muhammed.
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
June 28, 2010 1:18 PM
Oh, and Pat Condell's videos are how I learned about the sick fucking joke that is the UN's Human Rights Council, not to mention sharia courts in the UK (wtf???). Good stuff. But he's dancing a jig on the edge of a cliff over a sea of racism. Wait, was that "jig" line racist? Is he Irish?
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 28, 2010 1:22 PM
@64
I think the claim is that a wealthy man (bin laden) used anti-american sentiment to further his fundamentalist religious goals by tapping into the religious beliefs of the disenfranchised people of his country. In other words: there is not one root cause. It is valuable to attack both fundamentalism AND economic/social disparity.
Posted by: Foggg
|
June 28, 2010 1:22 PM
It's held by 31% of the US adult population.Posted by: great.american.satan
|
June 28, 2010 1:23 PM
@66- I didn't mention that, true, but that was Europe and this is here. Only one death threat was ever publicly identified in the South Park case, and it was from an utterly fringe American group of creeps - not from a foreign terrorist group.
Actually, the European cases are why I fully endorse blasphemy against Muhammad, curses and piss be upon his name.
Posted by: timothy.green.name
|
June 28, 2010 1:37 PM
I think "worst religion" competitions are somewhat pointless.
***
@great.american.satan #67
Sharia courts in the UK are really just one form of binding arbitration, which is a standard practice in civil cases. There are certainly problems, not least that people (especially women) have the choice of Sharia court judgement or social ostracism, but they're not as big a problem as you might imagine. The equivalent Jewish system, the Beth Din courts, have been running for years.
TRiG.
Posted by: raven
|
June 28, 2010 1:46 PM
Not so.
Religions cover a huge spectrum both within themselves and between themselves.
Some are much more benign than others.
Comparing the Unitarians and mainline protestants to the Mormons, JWs, or Armstrong's Worldwide Horror Show of god shows that very well.
The various xian sects differ so much that claiming there is a single xian religion is impossible. There are multiple religions that have nothing in common but the name. They all hate each other.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 28, 2010 1:49 PM
@Great Satan
But the evil Islamic threat has been vastly overstated in this case.
This is true as regards a genuine existential threat to - for want of a better term - "the west".
The hysterical stuff is essentially where the over hyped imagination of "our" right wingers meets the wishful thinking of "their" extremists; IslamoEurope ain't ever going to happen. In fact I think the EU/US waging a genocidal war on the islamic world is a far likelier (albeit remote) possibility. The cascading trigger for which would be something truly extreme like : Pakistan goes Taliban and a Nuke goes off in .
However, as we see from this video, the personal implications for millions of individuals that live in Islamic societies is still truly awful. Which is I think the main point of the post.
I did a vid on this years ago and nothing much has changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tSeonq9lVM
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
June 28, 2010 1:54 PM
tim@71 -
Interesting... The UK's legal system never fails to weird me out. Beth Din courts? Who knew?
Oh, holy crap! I just remembered we have our own questionable fake court system! "Community courts" have had some problems, but it's hard to find info about that online as I look it up. I recall a case where an unelected community judge was issuing weird sexist decisions and engaging in overt corruption... Oh, google. Why have you failed me?
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 2:01 PM
I am claiming bin laden's case is not economically motivated.
In fact, there is simply no evidence for the politically correct claim that the main reason for radicalization is economy. It simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Why would an oil rich country like Iran turn to an ayatollah as the leader of the revolution? Are you claiming even in the poorest non-Islamic nation with an axe to grind with the US that could happen?
Posted by: Moveable Type
|
June 28, 2010 2:05 PM
This is quite an old story and the man did recant the day afterwards.
My daughter has been to the Maldives on holidays several times. Non Muslim visitors are forbidden to visit the main islands and mix with the residents and all but a few residents are prohibited from visiting the island reserved for visitors.
Mustn't corrupt to pure of heart.
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 28, 2010 2:12 PM
The difference at the current moment in history is that Christianity's most egregious proclivities are being held in check by secularism within the nations in question, while Islam's are not. And of course it was not all that long ago that the situation was reversed. We know full well what the extreme Christians will do if they are given the chance - they've pretty much told us so themselves.
On the other hand, on the perhaps naive view that ethics and morality, like all human endeavours, ought to be progressive, it is somewhat more damning that the Islamic theocracies of today are just as bad as the Christian theocracies of before, given all those intervening centuries during which they had the opportunity to observe and learn from atrocious Christian examples and make themselves better.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2DkvJq0Zs.HfX1slPTahWjpNkP3H#c7fe8
|
June 28, 2010 2:53 PM
PZ Myers impeccably turned out moral knickers get in a twist again.
You have no credibility, given that your country murders Muslims and others on a daily basis. The 500,000+ Iraqis whose death was a price worth paying to keep the non-negotiable American Way of life on track. The drone operators sitting safely in their padded office chairs, murdering Afghanis by the score. The collateral murderers in Iraq shredding people with 30mm canon fire. All in the name of the most despicable of religions - the Free Market.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 28, 2010 2:56 PM
given all those intervening centuries during which they had the opportunity to observe and learn from atrocious Christian examples and make themselves better.
On the contrary: They seem to have learnt that other lesson. Specifically that loosening the strictures religious life leads to mass apostasy, religious apathy and homo sex; best to keep the proles in harness.
Posted by: raven
|
June 28, 2010 3:09 PM
This is PZ Myers' fault? I seem to remember that he and a majority of the American people ended up thinking the Iraq war was a pointless mistake.
About on par with your own pointless mistake. Assuming 300 million Americans are all borged and think identically. You have confused PZ Myers and tens of millions of others with the Teabag party.
Of course, we are so hopelessly diverse and conflicted that the country is in some danger of flying apart.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 28, 2010 3:10 PM
@Some Yahoo ID
All in the name of the most despicable of religions - the Free Market.
PZ writes harangues on the behaviour of the US government regularly, especially the grade A asshats that kicked Iraq II off. Besides, does it have to be either or? Can't one agree with the thrust of your comment (personally I think you overstate it) and still think Islam wins the suckiest religion of the Ever award?
Posted by: Roestigraben
|
June 28, 2010 3:15 PM
#78
Care to tell which country you're from, so we can dig up some historic crime committed by its government and use that fact to deny you any credibility, even if you disagree with these actions?
Posted by: Leon
|
June 28, 2010 3:18 PM
Let's remember this next time some Christian whines that you don't have the gumption to attach Islam for fear of fatwa retribution.Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 28, 2010 3:22 PM
Re #82: this information is actually unnecessary. Allow me:
Yahoomess, you have no credibility speaking in defense of Moslems, given that there are members of your species who regularly slaughter pigs.
... So shut it, hypocritical cur.
(/As you were.)
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 28, 2010 3:26 PM
#78:
Given that PZ has repeatedly posted and criticized these very same American policies, even fairly recently quite savagely excoriating a supposedly liberal administration for continuing to follow them, I'd say he has quite a bit more credibility on this and other issues than someone like you, who seems to think it appropriate to wank off on criticisms without bothering to read (or comprehend) the prior posts on this blog.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 28, 2010 3:26 PM
CE, my argument is that you are letting conflations and misjudgments get in the way of what I believe are otherwise honorable intentions.
Who are 'they'? The convenient strawmen who are making that clear only to you? Are they also building a straw ladder for you to climb upon your hobby horse of (admittedly very real) outrages committed by the US?
The primary reason for this thread is an outrage committed in the name of Islam. Persisting with other arguments, no matter how noble, is a derail.
It's irrelevant, because it's largely a rhetorical flourish against Insightful Ape's point @37 (which is that it was ridiculous to ask us to consider US foreign policy as a directly relevant prerequisite to thinking about what happened here in the Maldives).
However, looking back at the context of your comment, I was wrong about the tu quoque label, and I retract it.
Posted by: Brother Bill
|
June 28, 2010 3:37 PM
Sounds like they are only 300 years behind us. The most optimistic outcome is that they will discover how to make an atomic bomb in 250 years and someone will accidentally set it off.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 3:39 PM
Hey stupid troll, in case you forgot, the overwhelming majority of casualties in Iraq were (and are still being) inflicted by Muslims, on other Muslims. And the religious hatred is simply disregarded as a motivator of violence, which gets called "sectarian". As for Afghanistan, the drone attacks targeting militants are worth mentioning, but girls' schools getting burned to the ground by the Taliban aren't?
You are the one with no credibility, you hypocrite.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 28, 2010 4:14 PM
I would guess that the vocal anti-war movement in america is a lot larger than the vocal anti-extremist movements in the countries in question. Many of us are part of that movement and I'm sure many, like myself, were BEFORE the war when the lack of evidence was clear to those not blinded by so-called "patriotism".
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 28, 2010 4:18 PM
AGW will probably take care of the Maldives, unfortunately, way before Islam morphs into secular humanism. On the other hand, they have the only president to hold cabinet meetings underwater.
Now back to reading the rest of the thread.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
June 28, 2010 4:21 PM
Believe it or not, we weren't consulted with what our country would do before war.Sorta like how you weren't consulted before planes were dropped on the USA.
Posted by: Schenck
|
June 28, 2010 4:38 PM
I was thinking about this video again today. Notice that Naik says first that Mr. Nazim, since he doubts or is not convinced about islam, must not actually know what islam is.
And then he recommends that he be killed for leaving it.
So Naik is idiotically say that even if a person is ignorant of islam, he should be killed for leaving it.
And lets be clear, Naik trys to hedge his statements by saying 'well if a person advocates for apostasy, thats when they should be killed', but thats obviously a death sentence either way, Mr. Nazim wasn't advocating for apostasy, and he was nearly executed by the state.
Posted by: Schenck
|
June 28, 2010 4:42 PM
to extend...
I mean its just crazy that a person who's so stupid as Naik, to say that a person who doesn't even understand a thing should be killed for leaving it, should even make a pretense at having the authority to decide life and death!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 28, 2010 4:43 PM
Looks like the false moral equivilency troll chew-toy @ 78 has run away.
Pity. My coat could be sniny-er...
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
June 28, 2010 5:00 PM
Among the saddest of human dramas is a brave man, acting on his conscience and standing on his principles having to face the horrendous truth that to continue will bring his own death, and then having to recite a childish assent to contrition simply to stay alive. I weep.
I am only encouraged a little that he is still alive. His ability to influence anyone or anything is now severely hobbled given that he is most assuredly being watched by those who wrote his wretched "confession."
Some day, something is going to give . . .
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 28, 2010 5:20 PM
This may sound odd, but the most worrying thing about Islam in my eyes is not the ultra-extreme militants who quite literally wish to enslave everyone on the planet to their brutal, medieval superstition. On their own, they would be fringe figures. Repugnantly violent fringe figures, but marginalized all the same.
What really worries me is the disturbingly large minority of mainstream muslims who belong to the "terrorism/stoning/theocratic tyrany is wrong but..." brigade. Don't get me wrong, the majority of muslims are harmless, law abiding citizens who are no more deluded than any other stripe of theist (which I suppose is not saying much), but on a number of occasions I have heard, in the wake of some terrible act of relegiously motivated oppression or violence, an apologetic that goes along the lines of;
"(Act of violence 'X') was terrible, but you can sort of see why it happened. You simply can't draw that cartoon of Mohammed/mock that archaic tenet of faith/be an atheist in a muslim country/be a woman who refuses to accept her status as the property of a man/come out as homosexual and expect there to be no consequences. While I do not endorse the violence, this would never have happened if the militants were not provoked..."
This kind of attitude creates a social environment where the idea that a person can be put to death for 'apostasy' seems acceptable, even reasonable, to the populous at large. It breed cretins like Zakir Naik and provides them with a podium.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 28, 2010 5:23 PM
While I do not endorse the violence, this would never have happened if the militants were not provoked..."
indeed, we saw quite a bit of that on the Mohammed as cartoon thread.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 28, 2010 5:33 PM
That specific abuses arise from adherence to fundamentalist Islam is not in question. However, treating Islam as the defining factor in these nations failings plays into the U.S. narrative of an Islamic threat to world peace, and encourages our citizens to tacitly accept our belligerent stance in the Middle East. It also ignores the role the United States government and its economic arms, the World Bank and the IMF, in precipitating the rise of fundamentalist groups to power.
I took the time to study in depth the Islamic "revolution".
this is a good summary of what I got out of studying that.
The current iteration goes all the way back to how the middle east was divided post WWII.
of course, the entire history goes WAY farther back than that.
Someday, I do hope that all of those involved can simply put what happened "before" (pick a random point, eh?), and simply move on.
Islam is being used as a political tool in the middle east, just like xianity is in the States.
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
June 28, 2010 6:14 PM
Well said! And like JesusFreakism, it really could become as benign a cultural institution as it claims to be, but probably never will because it's such a well-worn tool of social control.
Off-topic but relevant to bad religion, The Stranger's gay pride issue is out, and it has a hilarious theme: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/republicans-i-have-fucked/Content?oid=4320387
-
Posted by: black.iris.dancer
|
June 28, 2010 7:30 PM
#47, Sili, The Unknown Virgin —
Er… the people, maybe? I mean, there are 396,334 people there. What do you want to have happen to them?
Posted by: OJC
|
June 28, 2010 7:56 PM
This isn't really a unique story at all. Muslims all over the world wake up to the poisonous doctrine of Islam and are unable to escape.
http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/06/afghan-christians-issue-international-appeal-12637
ISAF maybe attempting to rid the country of the Taliban but the actions of the government that has replaced it are starting to sound familiar.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 29, 2010 1:17 AM
1st time for everything: PZ said 2 things I agree with in the 1 post.
1. Islam is the worstest religion of them all, &
2. Allowing Shariafied nations on the UNHRC is insane.
Shame that when conservatives say the exact same, they get accused of all kinds of phobia.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 29, 2010 1:30 AM
But, no worries, are the Maldives even still there? Aren't they well & truly beneath the waves by now, what with the Rising Seas due to Global Warming?
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 1:55 AM
The nation of the Maldives was almost entirely submerged briefly on 26 December 2004, you fool. It doesn’t require very much at all in sea level rises to inflict a natural disaster and make areas of land uninhabitable.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 29, 2010 2:08 AM
'almost entirely submerged briefly' in 2004 ?
well, things must have improved since, maybe its the new-fangled light lamps..
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 29, 2010 2:17 AM
Al B Asshole, instead of showing off you inhumane stupidity, try googling "December 26, 2004" and see what you find. Also, check out how high over sea level the the nation of Maldives is.
A new-fangled light lampsplaced in your head would actual provide some energy in your skull.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 29, 2010 2:48 AM
@#107
yeah OK, so there hasn't been a (major) tsunami in the Indian Ocean since 2004. Are you suggesting this has more to do with the humanity of those less stupid than me than the compulsory switch to energy-saving lamps?
Posted by: Hirnlego
|
June 29, 2010 3:37 AM
"I think the next atheist bus campaign should say "Scream all you want. It won't make your god any more existant"."
"All the tyranny in the world will never put a god up in the heavens."
http://atheistplanet.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-debate-atheist-child.html
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 29, 2010 10:18 AM
Al B Asshole,
Nonsense spews from my internet machine.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
June 29, 2010 2:38 PM
Hey, great.american.satan #62, as much as you long to find racism under every bed, my comment #17 was not intended that way.
You need to listen to an old and amusing Bob Dylan song, "The Talkin' John Birch Society Blues," and maybe you will gain some perspective on your problem.
Posted by: barefootID
|
June 29, 2010 2:40 PM
PLEASE WHAT CAN WE DO TO PROTECT THIS MAN?
I am shocked and disgusted!
Posted by: maldiviano
|
July 14, 2010 1:30 PM
another interesting case from Maldives.
"Hanged air traffic controller sought asylum for fear of religious persecution"
http://minivannews.com/society/hanged-air-traffic-controller-sought-asylum-for-fear-of-religious-persecution-9381
Posted by: mohamed.mv
|
August 24, 2011 12:53 PM
another, that makes the 3rd 'public apostacy'. wonder if the handful of closeted Maldivian nonmuslims came out it would make a difference.
http://minivannews.com/society/mother-of-self-declared-addu-apostate-launches-media-appeal-seeking-scholars-help-24460