Well, once again: I wasn’t planning on posting more at this blog (or at my other blog) until I finished going through my book, trying to “clean up the writing” (a task in which I’ve now been engaged, for more than 8 hours per day, every day, for more than a year – and it’ll probably take me another year to finish!), but recent events have compelled me to alter my plans.
In particular, this post resulted from the recent arrest of Saudi citizen Hamza Kashgari (spelled Kashghari in some news reports, and variously described as a “poet”, “blogger”, “writer”, and “journalist”) on the astoundingly primitive charge of “blasphemy” (viz., “the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things”). I felt the need to do what I could to try to protect Hamza from having his head chopped off (at the insistence of barbaric Saudi clerics). One of my actions was to submit comments on stories about Hamza carried in the English edition of the Saudi paper Arab News.
To see how my attempts to comment led to this post, below I’ve reproduced, first, one of the relevant reports about Hamza published by Arab News.
Ifta wants Kashghari tried for apostasyBefore seeing comments on the above report, perhaps readers would like to see what it was that Hamza Kashgari wrote to excite the clerical dictatorship “Ifta” to seek his beheading. The following is from a 10 February 2012 report in The Daily Beast:
By ARAB NEWS
Published: Feb 10, 2012 02:59 Updated: Feb 10, 2012 02:59
RIYADH: In a new development in the case of Saudi writer Hamza Kashghari, who wrote a few tweets that were considered slanderous to Almighty Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him), the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Religious Edicts (Ifta) issued a strongly worded statement in which it said mocking Allah or His Prophet is a downright sacrilegious act, kufr (infidelity) and apostasy that should no go undetected, local daily Al-Eqtisadiah reported Thursday.
"Whoever dares make a mockery of Allah, the Prophet or the Holy Book undermines the religion and displays enmity toward it. It is the duty of the rulers to try such a criminal," the committee said, warning Muslims to stay away from such practices so as to avoid exasperating God.
The committee issued its statement after a meeting under its chairman Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, the Grand Mufti.
The Prophet's Sunnah and Sciences, an Internet site, also strongly denounced Kashghari's blunders and urged the authorities to take stringent actions against him. "This is a sacrilegious action necessitating harsh punitive measures to deter others who might think of doing the same thing," supervisor of the website Faleh Al-Saqeer said.
He expressed confidence that the rulers of this Islamic country would not allow the culprit to get off scot-free.
According to local press reports, Kashghari left the country two days ago. People close to him said that he repented and regretted what he had said about Allah and His Prophet.
Under Islamic Shariah law, anyone who commits sacrilegious actions that may make him or her kafir should be given three days to repent, failing which the person is to be beheaded.
Last week, just before the anniversary of the [alleged] Prophet Muhammad’s birth, Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old Saudi writer in Jidda, took to his Twitter feed to reflect on the occasion.I trust that all sane readers understand why I would want to defend Hamza from the idiotic, damnable, power-mongering Saudi clerics, but now, to see the specific reason for this post, have a look at the following Comments that were posted in response to the report in Arab News that I quoted at the outset of this post. Readers might notice that I’ve attempted to segregate the comments using a color scheme; I especially would call interested readers’ attention to the comment by “Majid Lodhi” (which I’ve put in red); my own comments are those attributed to “Nick McConnell”
“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you,” he wrote in one tweet.
“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more,” he wrote in a second.
“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more,” he concluded in a third…
Kashgari has since deleted his Twitter account, and he says some like-minded friends have done the same. He declined to comment on his apology and retraction but insisted his battle was still not lost. “I view my actions as part of a process toward freedom. I was demanding my right to practice the most basic human rights – freedom of expression and thought – so nothing was done in vain,” he says. “I believe I’m just a scapegoat for a larger conflict. There are a lot of people like me in Saudi Arabia who are fighting for their rights.”
SYEDAKHLAQAMJADSo, with the final comment shown above, perhaps readers see the reason for this post, namely, to respond to the (damnable) comment by Majid Lodhi (shown, above, in red).
Feb 10, 2012 07:07
He must be tried. The punishment should be examplary so that in future no body should dare thinking of such things.
SEEKER
Feb 10, 2012 07:10
The statement of Al Lajnah Ad-Daaimah Lil Iftaa should have been translated in detail since nowhere in it did they mention that he has to be beheaded. They presented the facts & it's [its] refutation based on sound proofs without any rancour................. Secondly, it's becoming a trend that to be considered a free thinker, modernist, educated one has to condemn or abuse Islaam, it's [its] Prophet & it's [its] Religious Texts. Non Muslims do it regularly but some ''Muslims'' like Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen & others do it too. ----------------------- Now, one may say, it's Freedom of Expression -------- Is it really, If one questions the number of the Jews massacred by Hitler, it's considered ignorance & arrogance of the highest order & labelled as Anti Zionism & racist. There are many more examples to this --------- One must know that there is never absolute Freedom of Expression allowed even by the so called secularists & liberalists.
MUSLIM
Feb 10, 2012 07:13
Allaah is the most merciful...even if he dint [didn’t?] really repent..look how he got saved!!
AMERICAN MUSE
Feb 10, 2012 13:50
The intolerance of the adherents of Islam to divergent views is indeed very sad and depressing of itself. But more significantly for the future of the religion in this modern era, that attitude could surely spell its rejection and decline.
BEMUSED
Feb 10, 2012 13:55
What did he say exactly to make everyone want to kill him?
JHK
Feb 10, 2012 13:55
"spirituality under gun-point"
SKN
Feb 10, 2012 14:04
He's only 23 years old! I know what he did was wrong, but a little mercy, please!
ABDUL
Feb 11, 2012 03:25
I SEE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF NON-MUSLIMS HERE POSTING THERE [their] OPINION ON THIS TOPIC. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON [people] WHO CALL THEMSELVES MUSLIM TO BE OKAY WITH WHAT THIS WRITER SAID ABOUT ISLAM. THIS WRITER DESERVE TO BE PUNISH[ed]. I HATE Kashghari.
MUHAMMAD SHAKER HUSSAIN
Feb 11, 2012 03:26
Kasghari irrespective of his repetance after doing the nasty thing can not be excused by any factor of his indulgence/ This kind of etheist [atheist?] have born on this planet earth earlier also. [??] It is not a new thing. Even if Kashgari excused by the royal decree he must be a focal point to the religious scholors and the related organisations as he must be having still an etheist [atheist?] tendencies. I am sure Kashgari can not avoid the punishment by any means. The Almighty God will trap him in a way that he can not escape. These kind of people should be given punishment which they should be remebered throught [through? the] rest of their lives.
MIGUEL
Feb 11, 2012 13:39
ABDUL: "I HATE Kashghari."
you hate what you fear. you fear what makes you feel insecure about yourself. you are a good example of someone who is NOT a believer - just a follower.
UMAIR
Feb 11, 2012 13:54
I dont agree with the freedom of expression philosophy. If something hurts the feelings of a majority of people, isnt it the right thing to ban it? You follow all the other rules, traffic signals, airport security, taxes etc. Why not follow another simple rule. Dont hurt people's feelings by saying bad things about Allah and Prohet (SAWW). If physical hitting is considered wrong in every society, then why not verbal hitting (when its often proven to be more harmful). This goes for non Muslims.
As for Muslims, there's the punishment of living a lie to your society by blasphemy as you never were Muslim and pretended to be so. The punishment has been decreed by GOD Himself who is ultimately the owner and master of all humans.
A fair trial should be done and he be given every chance to explain.
BLUESKY
Feb 12, 2012 00:41
If your feelings are so easily hurt and you're so insecure about your God, what does that say about yourself and your religion? Gad, people need to be given the freedom to find their own truth without being under threat of death. In these times, it boggles the mind there are still societies that operate under such oppression. Traffic laws and ethics have nothing to do with your personal spiritual convictions. Let's give people the freedom to find their own way without coercion.
MOHD ELFIE NIESHAEM JUFERI
Feb 12, 2012 21:59
I am the owner of Ibn Juferi group of websites. We are Malaysian muslims who have are drafting the anti-murtad laws. Once this is passed everyone will be tried as per Islamic shariah laws. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty. Only this will ensure that muslims do not leave the deen of Islam, which is the only true path and convert to false religions or become Atheists.
Please support our group. Thank you, wassalamu ALaikum rahmatullah.
ZAKIR HUSSAIN
Feb 12, 2012 22:05
I wonder why this so called liberal thinkers like Salman, Tasleema etc are back of [opposed to?] Islam and the Holy prophet, as they have stood the test and criticism of all times. If they are so liberal in their thinking let them debate on the subject of HOlocast and so called Armenian Massacre.
NICK MCCONNELL
Feb 12, 2012 22:05
As Lemuel K. Washburn wrote more than 100 years ago:
"Dogma is the hand of the dead on the throat of the living."
FONDUE
Feb 13, 2012 00:05
Mohd Elfie: your comment is truly disgusting to the point of making me sick, people have the right to believe what they believe, and in the same way people have the right to become a muslim and thake [take?] the shahada, they also have the right to look for their spiritual path somewhere else, learn a little respect towards humanity please...
CLEARSKY
Feb 13, 2012 00:55
"Let's give people the freedom to find their own way without coercion" – BLUESKY
This would be true if people are not gullible and who cannot be fooled by politicians like Bush Junior. Quoting Paul Craig Roberts: "But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that “they hate us for our freedom and democracy. Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you” [Gullible Americans]. And guess what? After 9/11 Bush Junior took away their freedom by Patriot Act so that the Americans will not be hated for their freedom anymore!
ABDUL QADIR KHAN
Feb 13, 2012 01:24
Non-Muslims and liberals stay out of this matter. Let Saudi government deal with their citizen as per rule of their country.
MAJID LODHI
Feb 13, 2012 01:36
It is illegal in India to speak or write against MK Gandhi. It is illegal in many Western nations to deny the holocaust. It is illegal in most countries in the world to verbally abuse the head of state. It is illegal in Germany to proclaim Nazism. To this day, it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.
What are all these countries trying to protect? In case of India, it is the honor of the 'Father of the Nation'. In case of holocaust, it is to honor the dead and respect their grieving families. In case of Nazism, it is to prevent the mistakes of the past and in case of Communism, it is to protect a way of life i.e. democracy.
So if a mortal being's honor is so important that a country with a population of one billion people respects it, then what do you say about the honor of a person who is followed across the world with more than a billion followers? And more over, what do you say about the One who created this person? the One who is recognized across the face of this Earth, and is openly acknowledged by 95% of the 6 billion people of this world is their Creator?
Surely, there is something wrong in the Western mind these days. How can you not see Atheism as a threat yet recognize communism and nazism as a threat to your way of life? You protect your children from physical harm, yet open them up to spiritual harm in the name of personal choice?
So why can't a person idolize Hitler and adapt Nazism as a personal choice? Because its not personal or spiritual, it is an ideology which manifests into abominable actions. It resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the last century!
Here's what you need to know about Islam. Yes killing is the worst of crimes against humanity. However, according to Abrahamic religions, killing a person will end his/her life in this world, but taking his religion away will make him suffer for eternity. That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.
The scholars are not being dogmatic about this, neither are anywhere close to the medievel church in their punishments. They are only calling on the authorities to take appropriate action against a threat to not just the lives of the people, but their hereafter.
By the way, the punishment is not straight-forward beheading. The person is given a chance to explain himself. Then he is educated on the matters he has erred. If he rejects the truth after it is being shown to him, then he is sentenced to death as an apostate. There is a whole process to it and there is no deadline of 3 days as mistakenly mentioned in this article. If he repents even after 20 years, his repentance is accepted. This is the Mercy of Allah.
NICK MCCONNELL
Feb 14, 2012 02:57
Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists. So be it. At the outset, however, I should warn you: you will lose.
UMAIR
Feb 14, 2012 12:54
NICK: Would you like to add some weight to your statement of denial by explaining the mistakes, misundestandings and misrepresentations. MAJID: Excellent comment. JazakAllah!
JACK T.
Feb 14, 2012 13:42
Majid Lodhi, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. None of those countries have the data [death?] penalty for saying anything.
Only God knows truly if Kashghari has offended God, and if this is the case, then God has all of eternity to impose whatever punishment is appropriate in Gods own view. No man can know how God actually feels about this, and no man has a right to impose punishment on behalf of God.
IBN
Feb 14, 2012 16:39
SURA-61: As-Saff (7-8)
(7) They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. (8) It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it.
NICK MCCONNELL
Feb 14, 2012 16:57
Umair: I'd be very pleased to "add some weight to [my] statement of denial [of Majid's atrocious Comment]." Most unfortunately, however, Arab News has repeatedly refused to post any comments that might upset Muslims. I'll therefore post my response at one of my blogs, which from experience I've learned that Arab News won't let me reference. I'll try this: search for "meansnends" (that's not a spelling error) or "zenofzero.net".
Before doing so, however, perhaps I should illustrate my comment in the final post above that “Arab News has repeatedly refused to post any comments that might upset Muslims”. One example is the following comment (on the above story) that I repeatedly submitted – but it never appeared:
The author of America's Declaration of Independence and its third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), said: "I am opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man."
America's leader of its revolutionary war and its first president, George Washington (1732-99), said it well: "If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
After escaping from slavery in America, the great statesman Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) said: "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."
A statement by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) seems especially relevant for today's Saudis: "A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything."
That follows, because as Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891) said: "Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."
Of course, all of this is "old news" to the censors of the Comments at Arab News, who have repeatedly demonstrated to me that they're afraid of permitting free speech.That done, I’ll now respond to Lodhi’s Comment, without concern about the censors at Arab News:
**************
As shown above, my earlier response to Lodhi (which managed to get past the censors at Arab News) contained the statement:
Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists.Below, I’ll list reasons for my assessment. To start, consider Lodhi’s first paragraph:
It is illegal in India to speak or write against MK Gandhi. It is illegal in many Western nations to deny the holocaust. It is illegal in most countries in the world to verbally abuse the head of state. It is illegal in Germany to proclaim Nazism. To this day, it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.Already his first paragraph contains many “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes”. For example, I expect that most people would agree that each country has some dumb laws, but that’s a red herring, because the topic being addressed has nothing to do with legality. Instead, it concerns morality.
The odor of additional red herrings in Lodhi’s first paragraph can be detected by noticing that the topic being addressed is not:
• An immoral law in India dealing with Gandhi (incidentally, although I have written praise of Gandhi, I’ve also written appropriate criticism),
• Immoral laws in several European countries dealing with denial of the Holocaust or with Nazism,
• Immoral laws anywhere dealing with “verbally abus[ing] the head of state” (which may be America’s favorite pastime!), or
• Immoral laws anywhere dealing with Communism – although I’ll add that, in contrast to Lodhi’s claim, I know of no Western democracy in which “it is illegal… to openly proclaim communism.” It’s correct that several European countries do have immoral laws that criminalize the denial of “crimes against humanity… committed by totalitarian communist regimes”, and though I (and many others) consider such laws to be immoral, nonetheless, such laws are vastly different from Lodhi’s claim “it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.”
But all the above points are more red herrings, because the topic being addressed deals with the immoral laws in most Muslim nations of killing people who criticize Islam’s “prophet”, Muhammad, or a fictitious, giant Jabberwock in the sky called “Allah”. Stated differently, what Lodhi’s pitiful argument reduces to is: “Look, Westerners have immoral laws; so, we Muslims get to have immoral laws, too.”
Now I admit that, immediately, I should address both the difference between ‘legality’ and ‘morality’. In addition, I should address the differences in morality adopted by different cultures, as well as the possibility of world-wide agreement on specific moral principles. Doing so thoroughly, however, is a major undertaking – which is why (in part) I provided the reference to my book, in which I devote many chapters to exactly those topics. Here, to reduce my workload, I’ll simply paste my previously posted summary in which I tried to explain why I consider Islam to be “evil”:
My goal for this post is to try to explain what I mean by the following “five foundational evils” of Islam:
1. Islam’s evil of promoting beliefs in the absence of reliable evidence,
2. Islam’s evil of demanding adherence to dogmatic ignorance,
3. Islam’s evils of violating human rights and advocating hate,
4. Islam’s evil psychological manipulations of “true believers”, and
5. Islam’s evil of waging incessant, immoral war against “unbelievers”.
At the outset, I should acknowledge that the above-listed evils (or “extreme immoralities”) of Islam are immoral according to my judgment (and also, I’m sure, in the judgments of essentially all secular humanists), but not in the judgments of essentially all Muslims. In their judgments, the topics listed above aren’t “evil” but “good”, because as Ali Sina summarized:
According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad, it is Muhammad who does it. They believe that what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate evil. This is the definition of good and evil in Islam.
This is the ethos of all cults. From Asahara’s “Aum Shinrikyo” to Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple” and from Sun Myung Moon’s “Unification Church” to David Koresh’s “Davidian Branch”, the recurring theme is that the cult’s interests override human understanding of right and wrong. In order to advance the interest of the cult, which is regarded as the ultimate good, everything (including lying and even murder and assassination) is permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it are enforced…
The first requisite to feel the pain and suffering of others is to accept that they have feelings like us and they also feel hurt the way we do. If we deny such feelings on others we do not feel any remorse in abusing them. Muhammad claimed all those who disbelieve in Allah are the worst creatures. He even said that all non-believers will end up in hell where they will be tortured for eternity. How then can Muslims treat equally those whom they believe to be worse than beasts and deserve eternal punishment?
Thereby, just as Emerson said about social justice (“One man’s justice is another’s injustice”), one person’s morality can be another’s immorality. Consequently, before trying to describe details about what I consider to be evils in Islam, it seems appropriate to review my meaning for ‘morality’.With my meaning for ‘morality’ as outlined in the above, perhaps it’s clear why I labeled both the laws mentioned by Lodhi and all Muslim laws dealing with “blasphemy” to be immoral: such laws (not only curtailing freedom of speech but even murdering those who have the audacity to hold opinions different from the Muslim majority) violate the fundamental, interpersonal moral-principle that’s described with such statements as “everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence” or “always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end” (e.g., your goal of perpetuating your religion).
In my [free] on-line book… I devote many chapters to the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Here, therefore, I’ll provide only an outline, along with references to more-complete explanations:
• Rather than a “black-versus-white” or “good-versus-evil” view of morality, and rather than struggle to identify appropriate adjectives or modifying phrases (e.g., “partially good”, “somewhat evil”, etc.), it’s convenient to use a numerical scale. At places in what follows, therefore, I’ll identify moral values on a numerical scale ranging from –10 to +10, with –10 corresponding to something judged to be “extremely bad” and +10 corresponding to something judged to be “extremely good”.
• As with any value, moral value has meaning only relative to some objective. For instance, if your goal is to build a sturdy house, then it would be “good” to use appropriate building materials (e.g., the use of bricks and mortar might be judged to have a moral value of +8, and use of lumber, maybe a +6), whereas building a house out of marshmallows and peanut butter, for example, would probably be judged to have a very low moral value (maybe a –7). Consequently, to discuss, evaluate and compare (and perhaps even agree on) morality, it’s first necessary to discuss and compare objectives.
• The root reason why judgments about morality are contentious (e.g., the morality of parents’ indoctrinating their children in religion) is disagreements about fundamental goals. Even a child asks “Why are we here?” – and no one knows the answer with certainty (or even if the question is reasonable). As I reviewed in earlier posts in this series, Zarathustra’s answer (that we’re here to participate in a cosmic war between good and evil) is the basis of the philosophy of both ancient Greek mystics (Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics…) and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam…), but the philosophy of both the ancient Greek realists (Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus…) and most philosophers today is consistent with the fundamental idea of existentialism (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre…): “existence before essence”. That is, in contrast to religious and metaphysical ideas that each human possesses an “immortal soul” with “eternal essence”, existentialism recognizes that humans first exist – and then we define our goals (or have them defined for us by our experiences and culture).
• Given that humans are goal-driven animals (with feelings of happiness arising when we think that we’re making progress toward achieving our goals), it’s understandable that humans are susceptible even to sometimes-bizarre suggestions about “the purpose of life” (i.e., what our goals “should be”), e.g., to placate some god or to follow in some charismatic leader’s footsteps. Because people adopt different prime goals, they have different concepts of morality (because, again, moral values, as with any values, can be judged only relative to some goal).
• People adopt thousands of goals (e.g., to build houses, to teach their children religion, to be happy, to finish a damnable writing task, etc.), but the prime goals of all humans seem to be similar. Prime goals are those goals for which all other (then, lower-priority) goals would be willingly sacrificed. Even a simple analysis suggests the obvious result that all humans pursue the following trio of interconnected, prime goals: the survival (or even “thrival”) of themselves, their families (whatever extent they recognize to be “family”), and their other values (e.g., honesty, bravery, fidelity, liberty, etc.). Relative to those prime goals, then, we form judgments about morality, as I’ll outline and illustrate below.
• Relative to our prime goal to survive (or better, thrive!), essentially all humans judge that continuing to live has high moral value (maybe a +9 or maybe even a +10, on a morality scale running from –10 to +10), but exceptions occur. Some exceptions arise from confused thought, some exceptions arise from indoctrination (e.g., religious indoctrination in the oxymoronic idea of “life after death” and the ridiculous idea that religious martyrs gain instant access to eternal paradise), but some exceptions arise because, in certain circumstances, another prime goal takes precedence (e.g., even other animals will risk their lives to save the lives of family members, especially their offspring).
• Relative to our prime goal of helping our families survive (whatever extent we recognize for our family), essentially all humans judge that protecting our families has high moral value (ranging perhaps from +1 to +10 on the morality scale, depending on details of the “protection”). In this post, I won’t have need to delve into the huge number of complicated details that arise, also, from what different people consider to be “family members”. Nonetheless, it’s relevant to mention the horrors that have resulted form considering as family only those people who belong to the same tribe, religion, or “race”, as did Ezra (writing as Moses), Muhammad, and Hitler. In wonderful contrast were Zarathustra, the Buddha, Cyrus the Great, Socrates (“I am not an Athenian, nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world”) and the resulting brotherhood sentiments of the Epicureans and Stoics, which were adopted by most Christians and all Humanists.
• Relative to our prime goal of maintaining our other values, judging the morality of any act can become even more complicated, depending on our decision about how knowledge can be gained (i.e., our epistemology) and our resulting worldview. For religious people, their worldview results in their clerics dictating values. For Humanists, i.e., those of us with a naturalistic worldview, each of us must decide on our other values by ourselves.
That said, I can now explain what I mean by labeling the indicated features of Islam to be “foundational evils.” Such judgments are based on my own perspective of morality, two important features of which are the following.
1. In the category of “personal morality”, I consider the highest moral value (i.e., a +10) to be to use one’s brain as best one can (which means more than just thinking: relying on data is essential), i.e., evaluate. In that respect, I generally agree with Socrates’ assessment, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance”, although when applied to personal morality, I would prefer a statement similar to: “There is only one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal.”
2. In the category of “interpersonal morality”, I’ve found it difficult to identify a single, all-encompassing description of acts with the highest moral value (i.e., a +10). Elsewhere, I’ve discussed the wisdom reflected in parables and sayings from essentially every culture dealing with love (within limits) and kindness (with keenness). And of course the reason for dealing with others compassionately is as described in ancient Hinduism as karma and in modern American culture as: “What goes around comes around.” For more formal statements of the highest interpersonal-morality, there is Kant’s, “Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end”, as well as my own, “Always recognize that everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence.”
So, with that attempt to explain my meaning of ‘morality’, I’ll now turn to additional “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes” in Lodhi’s published statement, although in an attempt to be briefer, I’ll provide just a few comments after each of his additional, quoted paragraphs.
What are all these countries trying to protect [with their “immoral” laws]? In case of India, it is the honor of the 'Father of the Nation'. In case of holocaust, it is to honor the dead and respect their grieving families. In case of Nazism, it is to prevent the mistakes of the past and in case of Communism, it is to protect a way of life i.e. democracy.That may be so (subject to restrictions derived from Lodhi’s mistaken ideas about the laws), but even if it were so, it doesn’t distract from the immorality of the laws, in that they restrict freedom of speech (beyond restrictions needed to protect other humans from physical harm) and, therefore, fail to recognize that “everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence” or, in Kant’s version of the fundamental, interpersonal moral-principle, such laws don’t recognize that individuals are ends in themselves.
So if a mortal being's honor is so important that a country [presumably, India] with a population of one billion people respects it, then what do you say about the honor of a person who is followed across the world with more than a billion followers? And more over, what do you say about the One who created this person? the One who is recognized across the face of this Earth, and is openly acknowledged by 95% of the 6 billion people of this world is their Creator?Here, again, the essence of Lodhi’s argument is: if an immoral law is adopted in India, then why shouldn’t Muslim countries have immoral laws dealing with blasphemy? That’s as sick an argument as I’ve ever encountered, although his additional statement is a close runner-up, which I’ll rephrase this way: whereas at least 99% of all people in the world were convinced that the world is a flat plate, therefore, it was obviously moral to kill those who had the audacity to think otherwise. And if that seems to be an outrageous analogy, recall that the previous Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Baz, issued a fatwa declaring that anyone who disagreed with the Qur'an that the Sun orbits the Earth was an apostate (and therefore, according to immoral Muslim laws, should be murdered) – a fatwa of comparable enlightenment to the reported ruling against Hamza Kashgari, apparently endorsed by the current Grand Mufti.
Further, I suspect it would be useless to point out to Lodhi (as I describe in detail in my book) that the “Creator” was most likely a symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation in a total void, leading to inflation (or "the Big Bang"), and that the most certain knowledge that humans have been able to gain (even more certain than the knowledge that we exist, for we may all be just simulations in a humongous computer game) is that there are no gods and never were any. I suspect that it’s useless to make those points, because in his Comment, Lodhi demonstrates that he's either unwilling or unable to think about anything that conflicts with his religious delusions.
Such delusions are also illustrated in his next two paragraphs:
Surely, there is something wrong in the Western mind these days. How can you not see Atheism as a threat yet recognize communism and nazism as a threat to your way of life? You protect your children from physical harm, yet open them up to spiritual harm in the name of personal choice?I won’t describe the balderdash contained in those two paragraphs just with such mild terms as “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes”; instead, I’ll describe the author as a damnable, egotistical maniac!
So why can't a person idolize Hitler and adapt Nazism as a personal choice? Because its not personal or spiritual, it is an ideology which manifests into abominable actions. It resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the last century!
That is, who in Hell (or anywhere else) is Lodhi to define for me (or anyone else) what's “spiritual”?! Examples of what’s “spiritual” for me include: to hear Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony again, to discover Axel Strauss’ performance of Rodolphe Krutzer’s Violin Concerto No. 17 in G Major, to finally solve a problem in theoretical physics that confounded the knowledgeable scientific community for more than a decade, to see another beautiful sunrise, to pet a friendly horse’s soft nose, to see my daughter again, and so on. In contrast, Lodhi’s “spirituality” is apparently to continue to “believe” (without a shred of data to support his silly “belief”) that after he dies he’ll have 72 houris (viz., “white raisins”) for his perpetual enjoyment! With all respect that's due, I say to Lodhi: “Blow out your ear, you pompous ass!”
And then, Lodhi enlightens us about how his fellow, maniacal Muslims will murder those who have the audacity to think for themselves.
Here's what you need to know about Islam. Yes killing is the worst of crimes against humanity. However, according to Abrahamic religions, killing a person will end his/her life in this world, but taking his religion away will make him suffer for eternity. That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.In summary, to all of Lodhi’s comment, including his abominable line
The scholars are not being dogmatic about this, neither are anywhere close to the medievel church in their punishments. They are only calling on the authorities to take appropriate action against a threat to not just the lives of the people, but their hereafter.
By the way, the punishment is not straight-forward beheading. The person is given a chance to explain himself. Then he is educated on the matters he has erred. If he rejects the truth after it is being shown to him, then he is sentenced to death as an apostate. There is a whole process to it and there is no deadline of 3 days as mistakenly mentioned in this article. If he repents even after 20 years, his repentance is accepted. This is the Mercy of Allah.
That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.I responded (in my Comment that managed to get past the censors at Arab News):
Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists. So be it. At the outset, however, I should warn you: you will lose.I added “you will lose [the war that Lodhi as well as, quite likely, the majority of Muslims and other religious fundamentalists have declared against Humanists]”, because I’m certain that, in the end, truth will prevail. As M.M. Mangasarian conveyed more than a century ago:
I shall speak in a straightforward way, and shall say today what perhaps I should say tomorrow, or ten years from now – but shall say it today, because I cannot keep it back, because I have nothing better to say than the truth, or what I hold to be the truth. But why seek truths that are not pleasant? We cannot help it. No man can suppress the truth. Truth finds a crack or crevice to crop out of; it bobs up to the surface and all the volume and weight of waters cannot keep it down. Truth prevails! Life, death, truth – behold, these three no power can keep back.
And since we are doomed to know the truth, let us cultivate a love for it. It is of no avail to cry over lost illusions, to long for vanished dreams, or to call to the departing gods to come back. It may be pleasant to play with toys and dolls all our life, but evidently we are not meant to remain children always. The time comes when we must put away childish things and obey the summons of truth, stern and high.
A people who fear the truth can never be a free people. If what I will say is the truth, do you know of any good reason why I should not say it? And if for prudential reasons I should sometimes hold back the truth, how would you know when I am telling what I believe to be the truth, and when I am holding it back for reasons of policy?
The truth, however unwelcome, is not injurious; it is error which raises false hopes, which destroys, degrades and pollutes, and which, sooner or later, must be abandoned…
When we subject what are called “religious truths” to the same tests by which we determine scientific or historical truths, we discover that they are not truths at all; they are only opinions. Any statement which snaps under the strain of reason is unworthy of credence.
But it is claimed that “religious truth” is discovered by intuition and not by investigation. The believer, it is claimed, feels in his own soul – he has the witness of the spirit that [for example] the Bible is infallible and that Jesus is the Savior of man. The Christian does not have to look into the arguments for or against his religion, it is said, before he makes up his mind; he knows by an inward assurance; he has proved it to his own deeper-most being that Jesus is real and that he is the only Savior.
But what is that but another kind of argument? The argument is quite inadequate to inspire assurance, as you will presently see, but it is an argument nevertheless. To say that we must believe and not reason is a kind of reasoning.
This device of reasoning against reasoning is resorted to by people who have been compelled by modern thought to give up, one after another, the strongholds of their position. They run under shelter of what they call faith, or the “inward witness of the spirit”, or the intuitive argument, hoping thereby to escape the enemy’s fire, if I may use so objectionable a phrase. What is called faith, then, or an intuitive spiritual assurance, is a species of reasoning; let its worth be tested honestly.
In the first place, faith or the intuitive argument would prove too much. If Jesus is real, notwithstanding that there is no reliable historical data to warrant the belief, because the believer feels in his own soul that He is real and divine, I answer that the same mode of reasoning – and let us not forget, it is a kind of reasoning – would prove Muhammad a divine savior, and the wooden idol of the savage a god. The African Bushman trembles before an image, because he feels in his own soul that the thing is real. Does that make it real? The Muslim cries unto Muhammad, because he believes in his innermost heart that Muhammad is near and can hear him. He will risk his life on that assurance. To quote to him history and science, to prove that Muhammad is dead and unable to save, would be of no avail, for he has the witness of the spirit in him, an intuitive assurance, that the great prophet sits on the right hand of Allah. An argument which proves too much, proves nothing…
There is in man a faculty for fiction. Before history was born, there was myth; before men could think, they dreamed. It was with the human race in its infancy as it is with the child. The child’s imagination is more active than its reason. It is easier for it to fancy even than to see. It thinks less than it guesses. This wild flight of fancy is checked only by experience. It is reflection which introduces a bit into the mouth of imagination, curbing its pace and subduing its restless spirit. It is, then, as we grow older, and, if I may use the word, riper, that we learn to distinguish between fact and fiction, between history and myth.
In childhood we need play-things, and the more fantastic and bizarre they are, the better we are pleased with them. We dream, for instance, of castles in the air – gorgeous and clothed with the azure hue of the skies. We fill the space about and over us with spirits, fairies, gods, and other invisible and airy beings. We covet the rainbow. We reach out for the moon. Our feet do not really begin to touch the firm ground until we have reached the years of discretion.
I know there are those who wish they could always remain children – living in dreamland. But even if this were desirable, it is not possible. Evolution is our destiny; of what use is it, then, to take up arms against destiny?
Let it be borne in mind that all the religions of the world were born in the childhood of the race. Science was not born until man had matured. There is in this thought a world of meaning.
Children make religions.Grown up people create science.The cradle is the womb of all the fairies and faiths of mankind.The school is the birthplace of science.
That Lodhi's Comment contains misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes undoubtedly reflects his attempts to maintain his childish delusions. To him (and to all who were indoctrinated in religious balderdash, be they Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or whatever their parents' perversion of reality) I'd convey a simple message: it's time to put away childish things. As I've elsewhere summarized Mangasarian's assessment:
Religion is the science of children; science is the religion of adults.
