Philosophy Now Forum

Not sure if this thread should go in the religion index or here? Should I discuss atheism and religion on an online philosophy forum if I live in a country where atheism is illegal and criticism of religion, particularly Islam is severely punished?

Seleucus wrote:Should I discuss atheism and religion on an online philosophy forum if I live in a country where atheism is illegal and criticism of religion, particularly Islam is severely punished?

It depends on how high the likelihood of you getting caught is. If there's any chance at all that you'll get found out, I would say don't do it.

Seleucus wrote:Not sure if this thread should go in the religion index or here? Should I discuss atheism and religion on an online philosophy forum if I live in a country where atheism is illegal and criticism of religion, particularly Islam is severely punished?

How discoverable are you? Are you writing on media unprotected by passwords on a public computer where people are likely to see what you are writing? You're relatively anonymous here, so if you remain 'unseen' where you are, you should be okay.

Are you planning to criticise Islam, directly, by attacking it's tenets? That wouldn't go down well, should your computer be seized by the authorities. (But why would they even be seizing it in the first place?)

If you were planning to engage in open discourse that kicks around intelligent ideas on the subject of religion and atheism. I'd say, you're probably okay. If you are planning to be fiercely 'pro' atheism, or the destruction of religion/Islam, or just plain old 'anti' Islam, in your arguments, then again, this may not bode well for you.

Only you know what your given agenda is with regards to the subject. I suspect that that you are asking the question may well mean you are probably atheist. Or wish to argue on behalf of atheism?

This might be easier to answer if we know which country you are in.

ForCruxSake wrote:This might be easier to answer if we know which country you are in.

Definitely revealing personal information online would be a very bad idea as it could leave me open to cyber stalking and vigilantism or being reported to the authorities.

ForCruxSake wrote:Are you planning to criticise Islam, directly, by attacking it's tenets?
...
If you are planning to be fiercely 'pro' atheism, or the destruction of religion/Islam, or just plain old 'anti' Islam, in your arguments, then again, this may not bode well for you.
...
Only you know what your given agenda is with regards to the subject. I suspect that that you are asking the question may well mean you are probably atheist. Or wish to argue on behalf of atheism?

We are both here connecting on a philosophy discussion site. We probably have a lot of similar views and values. What do you think about these issues like Islam or atheism? What I can say is that living in a country where atheism is illegal and criticizing Islam is strictly illegal, it makes one appreciate the free-speech enjoyed in some other countries, just taken for granted even. I'm jealous.

Harbal wrote:I would say don't do it.

Socrates would probably disagree with you. Of course you don't know my circumstances and can't evaluate my willingness to take risks or how highly I value free thought. 'Live to fight another day' has wisdom to it no doubt. Meanwhile, at a certain point that has to be called cowardice. When you see a country slipping into Islamic dictatorship, and fifty years ago it was more progressive than it is today, that's hard to watch happening and do nothing. Everyone is too scared to stand up to the Islamists. Not understandably: home invasion, shot dead coming out of a cafe, beaten to death by a mod with bricks, only getting arrested and imprisoned would be getting off easy.

I would love to know how they police 'atheism'. Are they mind-readers?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I would love to know how they police 'atheism'. Are they mind-readers?

I won't discuss the details of the law or cases too closely since that will be personally identifying. In three recent cases I know some details of, one man had posted on a popular social media site something along the line of "There is no God", his charge was blasphemy and he received a multi-year sentence which he served and was recently released. In another case, a cellphone video recording captured a man make a criticism of a specific verse in the Quran, the change he was sentenced on was insulting an imam (Islamic priest), not a specific imam, but imams in general, and an additional charge of blasphemy was dropped, he was also sentenced to multiple years imprisonment, this is a recent case and his incarceration has just begun. A third case involves a man who during a domestic argument tore pages from the Quran, his case is not yet settled, his charge is blasphemy and the prosecutor requested a multiple year sentence, he was reported by a neighbor.

Seleucus wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I would love to know how they police 'atheism'.

I won't discuss the details of the law or cases too closely since that will be personally identifying. In three recent cases I know some details of, one man had posted on a popular social media site something along the line of "There is no God", his charge was blasphemy and he received a multi-year sentence which he served and was recently released. In another case, a cellphone video recording captured a man make a criticism of a specific verse in the Quran, the change he was sentenced on was insulting an imam (Islamic priest), not a specific imam, but imams in general, and an additional charge of blasphemy was dropped, he was also sentenced to multiple years imprisonment, this is a recent case and his incarceration has just begun. A third case involves a man who during a domestic argument tore pages from the Quran, his case is not yet settled, his charge is blasphemy and the prosecutor requested a multiple year sentence, he was reported by a neighbor.

That's what happens when you don't have free speech. There are those on here who would like to see an end to free speech. I am glad you are here. It is good to hear from someone who has to deal with watching what they say and think in their every day life for fear of imprisonment and worse. It must be a form of torture for atheists.

Seleucus wrote: I won't discuss the details of the law or cases too closely since that will be personally identifying. In three recent cases I know some details of, one man had posted on a popular social media site something along the line of "There is no God", his charge was blasphemy and he received a multi-year sentence which he served and was recently released. In another case, a cellphone video recording captured a man make a criticism of a specific verse in the Quran, the change he was sentenced on was insulting an imam (Islamic priest), not a specific imam, but imams in general, and an additional charge of blasphemy was dropped, he was also sentenced to multiple years imprisonment, this is a recent case and his incarceration has just begun. A third case involves a man who during a domestic argument tore pages from the Quran, his case is not yet settled, his charge is blasphemy and the prosecutor requested a multiple year sentence, he was reported by a neighbor.

It's not even always the authorities that promote this kind of ill thinking.

In Pakistan, a mob beat to death Mashal Khan for being an "an uncommitted believer" and a humanist. Society is divided about the case. Liberty of belief is easier for those on higher incomes, usually dwelling in cities, I find. If you are from a rich family, in this mysterious country of yours, would it afford you more protection?

Are you not taking a risk, even posting the above?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I would love to know how they police 'atheism'. Are they mind-readers? I wouldn't bother with forcruxsake if I were you. She belongs to the Thought Police and doesn't take kindly to criticism of islam.

Coincidentally, the above post is the kind of post that attempts to promote mob hatred against an individual, proving this happens everywhere, even in the free thinking world. Luckily, everyone here, bar one, tends to ignore this user's attempt to promote personal hatred, or her attempts to bully her opposition into silence, using freedom of speech as her shield.

Seleucus wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:This might be easier to answer if we know which country you are in.

Definitely revealing personal information online would be a very bad idea as it could leave me open to cyber stalking and vigilantism or being reported to the authorities.

I totally respect your need to withhold information. It just makes it harder to research your original question, as different countries have different punitive measures, with regard to blasphemy and 'free thinking'. Some more harsh than others.

Seleucus wrote:We are both here connecting on a philosophy discussion site. We probably have a lot of similar views and values. What do you think about these issues like Islam or atheism? What I can say is that living in a country where atheism is illegal and criticizing Islam is strictly illegal, it makes one appreciate the free-speech enjoyed in some other countries, just taken for granted even. I'm jealous.

It's just as hard for me to express myself, here sometimes, against those who believe that 'freedom of speech' gives them the right to say anything they like, in an irrational, unmannerly way, even if it appears to be the sort of hate speech, used by political parties who see immigrants, or cultural others, as the cause of all their national ills. Is it right that freedom of speech should be allowed to spread race hatred, as happened in Germany, under Hitler? That always depends on who holds the reins of power and what their agenda is. The rest of us just slug it out until someone falls to the ground.

I'm not sure this post should be about what I think, beyond my examination of what you might be thinking. One response from me, to you, here has already elicited an irrational response, from another user. I feel more comfortable saying less about my personal thoughts, under these circumstances, than to engage with your thoughts. Having said which:

To me, its all a question of moderation. Self-moderation, I would say. No one should fall to crazy extremes. Banning freedom of speech is just as bad as freedom of speech allowing the kind of rhetoric that promotes hate speech, or proliferation of lies. I believe that whilst the function of thought is to observe and examine 'what is' and 'why it might be', that the way in which we do this should be mannered, good thinking, communicated well.

Whilst you are living in a country where you fear expressing yourself, we, here in the 'first world', face a different problem, where we are constantly manipulated by an increasingly dishonest press, whose freedom of speech extends into the freedom to promote lies.

The kind of 'chiselled' thinking espoused by Jihadists, does not represent Islam to me. That kind of thinking has been chiselled using very poor critical tools. It's just more hate speech by a bunch of disenfranchised people (and those they manipulate) who may or may not have cause to wage an ideological war on capitalistic imperialism, but who certainly do not have the right to murder anyone, particularly those innocent of the claims made against their governments, Similarly, those who would blame Islam for the rantings of a bunch of extremist haters, is also anathema to me. I know enough about Islam to defend it from rabid haters of extremism, who seem as extremist as those they hate.

I used to be very religious as a child, right into my teens, when my education at a Church of England grammar, in the UK, taught me to dismember my beliefs. Whilst disagreeing with much of what they have to say, I understand and respect the theists, but not the ones whose rhetoric is bullying. I would say the same of the atheists, whose anti-religious thoughts make more sense to me. I just hate bullies and those who abuse our right to free speech, by thinking it gives them the right to be offensive or promote lies.

The platform is open, in the so called 'free world', and all we can do here is fight back with our words, which often go unheard in our 'free to speak', yet less caring, culture. So it seems you and I have equal, yet opposite problems. Yours are more serious than mine. In my world the poor just face more poverty, and the rich and powerful, just take what they want. In yours, you face imprisonment, or worse, depending on where you are, just for speaking as you find.

I feel for you and realise that, despite my concerns for my own society, I am luckier than you. Don't be jealous. Find a way to join us, that doesn't threaten your well being, or the well being of others.

Seleucus wrote:Socrates would probably disagree with...

Harbal wrote:I would say don't do it.

Of course you don't know my circumstances and can't evaluate my willingness to take risks or how highly I value free thought. 'Live to fight another day' has wisdom to it no doubt. Meanwhile, at a certain point that has to be called cowardice. When you see a country slipping into Islamic dictatorship, and fifty years ago it was more progressive than it is today, that's hard to watch happening and do nothing. Everyone is too scared to stand up to the Islamists. Not understandably: home invasion, shot dead coming out of a cafe, beaten to death by a mod with bricks, only getting arrested and imprisoned would be getting off easy.

Most people would attempt to leave, or flee, such a country. Again, I appreciate that takes connection, wealth or other resources.

Good for you, to have the courage of your convictions, as did Socrates. Just be careful.

I may PM you as I work out where you are, from the clues you've given, if that's okay with you. If not, just let me know.

And finally, although it's a bit late: WELCOME TO THE FORUM.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That's what happens when you don't have free speech.

ForCruxSake wrote:Banning freedom of speech is just as bad as freedom of speech allowing the kind of rhetoric that promotes hate speech, or proliferation of lies.

My take on this debate is something like this... When you live in the West, you think critically about your society and about how you can improve it. (Something which is impossible in Islam because Muhammad is the perfect man and innovation, Bid‘ah, is heretical.) But when you are outside the West, you appreciate how awesome the West is. Obviously I can't endorse the alliance leftism has struck up with Islamism. But at least to my mind it makes sense in terms of social dominance theory, those who identify as hierarchy-attenuating take a tactical binary view in which 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', therefore this utterly bizarre alliance between radical feminists, militant homosexuals, anarcho-communists and Islamists coalesces because they are all allied against perceived core Western values. A tactical victory, but a strategic loss! Islam increasingly suppressed philosophy and free thought after Al-Ma'mun. Al-Wathiq and Al-Wathiq maintained Mu'tazilism (the continuation of Plato's Academy), but after 847 the House of Wisdom lost influence and Islamic civilization took a turn towards dogmatism and those capable of philosophy "turned on, tuned in, and dropped out" and joined the hippy Sufic movement. Arabization, that is to say, Islam, a cultural movement that attained nothing above pirating and caravan raiding, pillaged Greco-Roman and Persian civilization until the Middle East had been turned from the center of the world into a hole of poverty, violence and ignorance. And that is where things sit today in 1438 AH.

Seleucus wrote: My take on this debate is something like this... When you live in the West, you think critically about your society and about how you can improve it. (Something which is impossible in Islam because Muhammad is the perfect man and innovation, Bid‘ah, is heretical.) But when you are outside the West, you appreciate how awesome the West is. Obviously I can't endorse the alliance leftism has struck up with Islamism. But at least to my mind it makes sense in terms of social dominance theory, those who identify as hierarchy-attenuating take a tactical binary view in which 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', therefore this utterly bizarre alliance between radical feminists, militant homosexuals, anarcho-communists and Islamists coalesces because they are all allied against perceived core Western values. A tactical victory, but a strategic loss! Islam increasingly suppressed philosophy and free thought after Al-Ma'mun. Al-Wathiq and Al-Wathiq maintained Mu'tazilism (the continuation of Plato's Academy), but after 847 the House of Wisdom lost influence and Islamic civilization took a turn towards dogmatism and those capable of philosophy "turned on, tuned in, and dropped out" and joined the hippy Sufic movement. Arabization, that is to say, Islam, a cultural movement that attained nothing above pirating and caravan raiding, pillaged Greco-Roman and Persian civilization until the Middle East had been turned from the center of the world into a hole of poverty, violence and ignorance. And that is where things sit today in 1438 AH.

Very interesting. Thank you for that perspective and history. I agree with you entirely about the "bizarre alliance": how else can one account for the fact that one faction of the group is beating and muzzling another of the factions (largely unopposed by that faction), and is hanging another one from cranes and throwing them off rooftops for the cameras...and yet they all end up on the same "side"?

In response to your initial question, I would suggest that it depends on a) why you are interested in discussion...especially what "goods" you hope to achieve from doing so, and b) the degree to which those "goods," if attainable here, are worth hazarding exposure and possible persecution.

How serious are you? How much are you willing to risk? Only you can decide. I don't think we here have any right to tell you how far you wish to go.

Seleucus wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That's what happens when you don't have free speech.

ForCruxSake wrote:Banning freedom of speech is just as bad as freedom of speech allowing the kind of rhetoric that promotes hate speech, or proliferation of lies.

My take on this debate is something like this... When you live in the West, you think critically about your society and about how you can improve it. (Something which is impossible in Islam because Muhammad is the perfect man and innovation, Bid‘ah, is heretical.) But when you are outside the West, you appreciate how awesome the West is. Obviously I can't endorse the alliance leftism has struck up with Islamism. But at least to my mind it makes sense in terms of social dominance theory, those who identify as hierarchy-attenuating take a tactical binary view in which 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', therefore this utterly bizarre alliance between radical feminists, militant homosexuals, anarcho-communists and Islamists coalesces because they are all allied against perceived core Western values. A tactical victory, but a strategic loss! Islam increasingly suppressed philosophy and free thought after Al-Ma'mun. Al-Wathiq and Al-Wathiq maintained Mu'tazilism (the continuation of Plato's Academy), but after 847 the House of Wisdom lost influence and Islamic civilization took a turn towards dogmatism and those capable of philosophy "turned on, tuned in, and dropped out" and joined the hippy Sufic movement. Arabization, that is to say, Islam, a cultural movement that attained nothing above pirating and caravan raiding, pillaged Greco-Roman and Persian civilization until the Middle East had been turned from the center of the world into a hole of poverty, violence and ignorance. And that is where things sit today in 1438 AH.

And the struggle for supremacy continues within Islam itself. Shi-ite, Sunni. Wahabi, Hanafi... and various other different schools of thought.

In the UK, most Islamic schools of any repute have been installed by Saudi concerns, preaching Wahabi-ism. Certain Sunnis are critical and prefer to have their children learn the faith inter-community. The Somalians will have cultural differences in the way they to the Pakistanis etc. So even amongst the Sunnis, no Muslims are identical, anyway.

When I was a kid, Arab Muslims were very different from Pakistani Muslims, just in the way they looked. In the modern day, the more Arabic look has surfaced as the 'a la mode' look for Asians, despite Pakistani Muslims complaining that Wahabi-ism is taking over.

In order to read and understand the Qu'ran, I sought out an English version. Even that brought up cries of dissent as to which the most 'true' version was. I read a couple and came to my own conclusions. Here in the West, Muslims have the freedom to practise their faith alone, without the interference of imams. Whilst many try to go to Juma prayer, not everyone is affiliated to a mosque. Many go, as Catholics do Christmas mass, on Eid, and only Eid.

Stranger and more contentious... Back in the 1990s, a community in Hamburg elected a woman imam, which was immediately declared illegal by the Muslim world that caught wind of it. The imams were up in arms. "How could a woman be an imam if she can't even enter the mosque one week in every month?", they cried. Iran issued fatwahs but the community that had elected her stood firmly behind her, saying the prophet had said that on his passing, each community should elect a community leader to help the community come to decisions, on questions of faith. The imam is not elected as a dictator in many Western mosques. I have no idea what happened to that mosque, or Imam, I just remember the delegation that formed here that went there to show their support. Prior to 9/11, there was a sense of progressive Islam, forming here. After that, it all became about sides: you're either 'a Muslim' or you're not. No flavours or openess to interpretation, despite the different sects or schools of thought. There is no thought in modern Islam, only practise, based on rules that seem to have been set in stone.

Most Muslims I know, practise as they practise, they read and know their Qu'rans and hadiths, and don't attend necessarily attend mosques. Some pray five times a day, others are more lax. Some drink, none eat pig meat! All still call themselves Muslims, because they hold to the Five Pillars, intending to fit in the Haj towards the latter part of their lives. Others call them out for being so lax. They respond that they will answer to God on the Day of Judgement, not some fatwah-happy ayatollah in Iran.

We still have the luxury of religion being a personal practise here, with the option to dip in and out of community worship, whatever faith you practise. Of course there are Muslim communities that are more strict as you go to the north of England, but generally no one is watching you but your family... from whom you hide the alcohol... An Arab word funnily enough.

Seleucus wrote: 'Live to fight another day' has wisdom to it no doubt. Meanwhile, at a certain point that has to be called cowardice.

I suppose you have to weigh up what you have to gain against what you have to lose. Is it worth the risk? Can you make a difference to anything by talking about it and, if so, how much. I wouldn't call it cowardice to avoid risking your neck if there's no great advantage to be gained by it. I guess it's a case of being one voice among many, yours alone won't make a difference but if enough people have the courage to speak then it might. I would still be reluctant to encourage you to put yourself in danger though.

Seleucus wrote:Not sure if this thread should go in the religion index or here? Should I discuss atheism and religion on an online philosophy forum if I live in a country where atheism is illegal and criticism of religion, particularly Islam is severely punished?

No.

No reason to.

The world already knows.

The benefit does not outweigh the risk.

Harbal wrote:I suppose you have to weigh up what you have to gain against what you have to lose. Is it worth the risk? ... I would still be reluctant to encourage you to put yourself in danger though.

Immanuel Can wrote:In response to your initial question, I would suggest that it depends ... worth hazarding exposure and possible persecution.

Walker wrote:The benefit does not outweigh the risk.

Where I'm at at the moment is when I discuss philosophically with a close colleague, we make sure the door is closed so we aren't overheard. I use TOR and proxy services to be able to access government blocked websites. I support non-Islamist political candidates and I support private non-religious educational institutions. I wouldn't talk publicly or on a popular online platform about atheism and religion, in today's news:

"“Uploading & sharing of blasphemous content on Internet is a punishable offence under the law. Such content should be reported on info@pta.XXX.pk for legal action,” read the SMS sent by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to all mobile phone subscribers."

ForCruxSake wrote:the more Arabic look has surfaced as the 'a la mode' look for Asians ... Wahabi-ism is taking over

Sometimes this is called Arabization. Fifty years ago almost no women wore headscarves outside of a few Salafist enclaves, today it is ubiquitous. Ten years ago you couldn't see a niqab, today at parks and malls it is quite common to see women totally covered up. (Wahhabism is the outsider term for Salafism, Salafists consider the word Wahhabi derogatory. I personally use the word Salafi because its the word I'm used to, not because I'm a Salafist.)

Generally it is magnanimous to 'live and let live'. On-the-other-hand, nazi arm-bands are symbol of fascism, symbols are on some level not real but they can have a lot of power, so it isn't very nice to see people going around with nazi arm-bands. We mostly want to reject everything about nazism, even though an arm-band is just a piece of cloth. People who say things like, "not all nazis were mass-murders, don't you know that nazis were leaders in the vegetarian and environmentalist movements" are going to get cock-eyed looks. Similarly, when people say, "not all Muslims are mass-murderers, don't you know that Muslims were leaders in calligraphy and geometric art", that's suspicious. Obviously a combination of rejection and reform is inevitable, assuming that Islam doesn't take over and become an eternal global caliphate.

Below the level of jihad, apostasy, blasphemy and miscegenation laws and such things, but still important problems are: (1) circumcision of boys and also girls (FGM), (2) animal sacrifice, and (3) megaphones on mosques. The loudspeakers on minarets is a really serious issue that I don't believe most people in the West are even aware of. There is a mosque on every block that blares Arabic chanting for hours on end, even in the middle of the night, even for whole days continuously. Given the established relationship between sleep and intelligence, the mosque noise-pollution problem in the Islamic world is probably sufficient to explain Donald Templer's research on Muslim IQ. But the stifling of free thinking, speech, and press is probably however the real reason why only 11 out of 911 Nobel Prizes have gone to Muslims.

ForCruxSake wrote:saying the prophet had said that on his passing, each community should elect a community leader to help the community come to decisions, on questions of faith.

I would personally not engage in a debate on the level of theology any more than I would engage in a serious discussion on who would win in a fight between Mighty Mouse and Superman. This relates to the issue of blasphemy charges since even to enter into a defense against blasphemy charges acknowledges the legitimacy of such a concept.

ForCruxSake wrote:In order to read and understand the Qu'ran, I sought out an English version.

I'm personally open to ta'wil, that is, interpretation of the Qur'an as an allegory for seeking enlightenment, it is associated with Tasawwuf (Sufism). Ta'wil is in opposition to tafsir, which is religious level interpretation.

You know my position and so I won't encourage you to discuss that topic,
by discussing it with you.

There are other ways to express what must be expressed.

Sincere good fortune to you if you must persist with others.