Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackhaz | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

But it's not really even (or just) that; Muslims (in general obviously) have their own view on what Islam is and is not, and this may not jibe with Muslims from other parts of the world. A prime example is Ahmadiyyas; they consider themselves to be Muslims but in particular some of the harder line Muslims (for example some Wahhabists) would consider them to be heretical. And hence some would argue that they are breaching the Blasphemy law.

tbf Ahmadiyyas are a particular exceptional case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find even moderate mainline Muslims accepting of them as coreligionists, since they (seemingly) violate one of the basic tenets of Islam, i.e., the Seal of the Prophets. The fact that Ahmadiyyas do accept the Seal of the Prophets but assign a sub-prophet role is the devil in the details here.

By the same token it could be argued that Islam violates the Blasphemy laws in that it treats Jesus as a prophet and not God; i.e. it violates one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

So my main point stands, because so many people claim so many different things under the colour of religion, laws like the Blasphemy law turns into a case of my sect is better / stronger than your sect. And now I have a piece of paper that proves you broke the law.

Originally this law was written to try to keep the peace, but now it has been weaponised to suppress minorities.

I agree with your assessment of Islamic beliefs would constitute as Christian blasphemy, and vice versa.

My point is directed at the specific example of the Ahmadiyyas, with the text suggesting that it's an example of the spectrum of Islamic practices. While there is definitely a spectrum in the way Islam is practiced across the world in ways that might throw off outsider Muslims, Ahmadiyya is an extreme example that I would suggest is not representative of the continuum. It's not just some hardliner believers that would consider them heretical, or even just 'some Wahabbists' - I would suggest that mainline Muslims across the spectrum would denounce the theology as heretical. Yes, there is definitely a spectrum of beliefs across the Islamic world, but the Ahmadiyya theology modifies one of the core pillars that would be a hard buy for believers.

Whether blasphemy laws should exist is an entirely other point (I don't think they should).

You have a very "romantic" view about " modern times". You see, a lot of people held at Guantanamo were muslims.

I am sure you will find many, many dark places in the Muslim world as well. Spreading religion won't get rid of Guantanamos.

That implies that “modern” is unequivocally better than anything else.

Not sure why people are down-voting this.

While theocracy is a clear and present danger, "modern" is too broad a label to apply as a counter to it.

The more accurate counter would be policy based on empiricism. This is not predicated on the idea that the progression of time advances all things, but rather a timeless philosophy that has had its peaks and troughs throughout history.

It's because it's not accurate. The above comment was framing the argument, not making the argument. There wasn't an implicit value judgement. Someone else is free to argue that an oppressive 7th century religion is better or worse than modern times within that frame. Or argue (like you have done) that it's an inadequate framing.

Not really, it implies that "modern" is better than a 7th century religion

One modern alternative is "no religion", which is better than any religion that enforces this kind of crap. This is the position any modern governing entity should take.

I don't have a problem with religion in principle, only when it is used as justification to mistreat others, as is happening here. At that point any spiritual benefits it offers adherents are outweighed by the societal harm it causes. There are good religions like this, they just don't preach about exciting fire and brimstone from the pulpit.

It's not automatically good. One of the most atheist governments was Soviet Russia, with the attendant horrifying death toll on its population.

When I say "no religion" I don't mean "state mandated atheism".

I also don't think organized faith of any kind would have done anything to solve the problems with the Soviet Union. Especially when they were one despotic atheist state among countless despotic theocracies.

Fair enough. Separation of church and state has been progressing over the last thousand years. I surmised the only modern thing you could've been referring to was state atheism. Did you mean something different to both of those things?

> Especially when they were one despotic atheist state among countless despotic theocracies.

Not countless. They had plenty of democracies around them as well. And even if they hadn't, Communist China and Communist Russia's death tolls on their own populations make every other despot in history added up look like nothing.

Separation of church and state is exactly what I'm talking about. I consider it modern, even though the idea is now pretty old. Throughout most of human history, religion has been a key part of the power structure of most civilizations. In that context, the ideas brought forth and during the Age of Enlightenment are still very "modern".

There are also still many countries that have yet to adopt this ideal, and even within many developed democracies there are still forces that wish for us to regress.

Czech Republic is one of the most atheist countries in the world (76% are irreligious). Doing fine.

It's funny that the "death toll" was mainly given by the "western democracies".

True, but in this case it absolutely is.

In this context?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com