‘Prisoner of conscience’: Saudi blogger gets 10 years, 1000 lashes for ‘insulting Islam’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44761460]A large percentage of the Middle East isn't Saudi Arabia. Most people in the more progressive countries like Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE etc. won't agree with the rules in Saudi Arabia. Saying Islam is a massive problem is the same as saying Christianity is a massive problem. The exception is not the rule.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=glitchvid;44761317] Why is the first reaction "Oh but THEY did it TOO!" Nobody is saying they didn't (or if they do, they're wrong.), it's that in current times, Islam is the worst offender, here and now. It would be very wise to get Skepticism and free speech (of sorts) into the middle east, then they can help themselves. [/QUOTE] [u]Religion[/u] is a massive problem, Islam just happens to be the one we're talking about.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44761470][u]Religion[/u] is a massive problem, Islam just happens to be the one we're talking about.[/QUOTE] We get it, you don't believe in organized religion. I don't either, but people have faith in these religions whether you agree with it or not.

Didn't Saudi criticized Norway for human rights? How ironic.

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44761481]We get it, you don't believe in organized religion. I don't either, but people have faith in these religions whether you agree with it or not.[/QUOTE] It's not whether or not I agree with it, it's spreading blatant ignorance. Religion's functions go against the scientific method. With religion you do not need evidence, you just take it "on faith". This means that you cannot have skeptical integrity.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44761512]It's not whether or not I agree with it, it's spreading blatant ignorance. Religion's functions go against the scientific method. With religion you do not need evidence, you just take it "on faith". This means that you cannot have skeptical integrity.[/QUOTE] Yeah it "goes against the scientific method" but not everyone who follows a religion is a nuthead who spouts the word of god at every opportunity. People have more reasons for believing in a god than just "faith" Nobody is gonna be turned to the "light" because some dude on the internet who's obsessed with skepticism said they should be more skeptical god damn as long as nobody is getting hurt let them believe what they want to believe

[QUOTE=Araknid;44753478]theres always one post like this in every thread relating to islam. do you really think every muslim ever on earth agrees with this[/QUOTE] I believe that Islam is so oppressive that extremism occurs more and is present in many Islam governments.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;44753575]Well, Islam says so, so yes. Not many religions are purely peaceful with no violence or slaying of the nonbelievers of this particular religion in it, but in 2014, Islam is the worst about it.[/QUOTE] Christianity says women can't wear trousers. Nobody believes everything their religion tells them, the trouble comes when world leaders use the shitty parts of religions to further their own agenda or to simply brainwash their people. This particular situation is incredibly reminiscent of when people would get the same sort of punishment for blaspheming in medieval Christian countries. It's not the religion itself that is the problem, it's how it's being used.

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44761545]Yeah it "goes against the scientific method" but not everyone who follows a religion is a nuthead who spouts the word of god at every opportunity. People have more reasons for believing in a god than just "faith" Nobody is gonna be turned to the "light" because some dude on the internet who's obsessed with skepticism said they should be more skeptical god damn as long as nobody is getting hurt let them believe what they want to believe[/QUOTE] I don't think you're reading what I'm posting. Religion (All of it, Faith) does not require evidence for belief. This in itself is damaging to everyone. Saying "As long as nobody is getting hurt.." is a massive cop out. Look at the title of the thread for evidence, look at Scientology, Look at the anti-birth control movement sprung from Christianity. And nobody SHOULD be turned to the ""light"" because I said so, they should look up facts for themselves. It seems you are realizing you have no ground to stand on, so you're going "yeah, well nobody will listen to you anyway". My intention isn't to convert a person to anything, the best I can achieve is to get you and others to think about what they believe in a rational way. Look: [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids[/url] [url]http://forums.randi.org/index.php?pageid=dover[/url] [url]http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2011/03/report_nantucket_child_killed_exorcism[/url] And many, many more is all possible because people do not rationally think, do not apply the scientific method to their everyday life: and religion is the reason for this.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;44753515]Your'e not really defining who 'we' are in the context of the societies you're talking about I think the activist responses to situations like the one in the source are pretty clearly showing 'them' trying to improve the situation[/QUOTE] No need to grasp at straws here. The west*

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]No, extremist in that it's an extremist fucking country. I grew up in the Middle East, I'm half arab, and I used to be Muslim, I know more about the culture there than you ever will[/quote] Yet you clearly don't understand your own religion, not only what is actually said in the Quran, but also the history surrounding Islam and Muhammad himself. You know fuck-all about this topic. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Close, but no cigar. You're leaving out the parts that say that this shit is only okay in times of war, or when Muslims are under attack for their own beliefs. Googling "killing non believers in Islam" yields a website you've used as a source that only has half the story.[/quote] Which simply isn't the case. The translations you're using are disingenuous, as plenty of scholars have noted over the years. Insofar as Surah 2, verses 190 through 193 go, here's the key passage: [quote]"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing . . . but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun" Surah 2, verse 191[/quote] Al-Fitnah/Fitnah translates to refer to disbelievers and polytheists. Similarly, Az-Zalimun translates to refer to polytheists, criminals, and other "wrongdoers" (they're all considered one in the same). Verse 190 says you're not supposed to be a transgressor, but immediately later on in this verse, verse 191, it says it's actually okay to be a transgressor. God will forgive disbelievers and polytheists, but you're still nevertheless supposed to fight them until there is no more disbelief "and worship is for Allah alone"; and in the event of peace, you can still be as much of a transgressor as you want to be against the polytheists and other such "wrongdoers" (criminals in the case of Az-Zalimun actually makes some sense, but that doesn't erase the fact there's the clear advocation of religious persecution here). [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]"Muhammad himself" was indeed a conqueror, and spread the territory of Islam far and wide by conquering states and cities.[/quote] Good, glad we got that out of the way. He wasn't a peaceful self-defender acting as a prophet of God, he was first and foremost a conquering religious warrior who sought to mercilessly spread his religion with the help of his followers. Again, when you take this historical fact into context with all the others that are available surrounding what he and his followers did when the revelations were made, and combine it with what's written in the Quran, you very quickly get a sense of how little self-defense is actually being advocated. Especially when you understand that the Muslims were really not being persecuted and oppressed as much as they liked to give the impression that they were. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]"War" is not a part of this religion, insofar as it isn't written that war should be an acceptable thing.[/quote] What? Not only have you conceded that it's very own prophet was a conquering holy warrior, who "spread the territory of Islam far and wide by conquering states and cities", but the Quran itself even reflects this point. Again, war and fighting and even martyrdom are expoused throughout it as being virtuous. [quote]"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Surah 2, verse 216[/quote] ^ Self-explanatory. [quote]"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." Surah 4, verse 76[/quote] ^ Fighting and dying for God is glorious. Martyrdom is glorious. [quote]"Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. Unto all in Faith Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit at home by a special reward . . ." Surah 4, verse 95[/quote] ^ Muslims who are warriors and actively fight for their religion are more special in God's eyes than Muslims who are peaceful and don't fight. [quote]"O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence." Surah 8, verse 65[/quote] ^ Again, self-explanatory. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Conquest was used as a tool to spread the religion, I will concede that,[/quote] Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere! [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]and "struggle" is debatable.[/quote] War [i]is[/i] struggle. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Muhammad and his followers did sometimes force people to convert, but they were not killed if they refused, they were taxed heavily or had their properties taken.[/quote] Some were actually killed for not converting. But that's besides the point considering far many more were killed in battle/after battle simply for being disbelievers and polytheists, and therefore unworthy of mercy. Not that any of this matters much anyway since you concede as well that Muhammad and his followers still went ahead and persecuted them when they were feeling merciful by placing unfair taxes on them or by stealing their property. Which I've always found that last part ironic (or more correctly hypocritical), since that's what the Meccans did to Muslim migrants bound for Medina (they seized their property), and that's what led to Muhammad authorizing his followers to raid their caravans and basically start their war with Mecca, even though by this point they were already set up in Medina where the Meccans were more than content to leave them the fuck alone and not so much as attempt to harass them. This is what you justify your aggressive behavior with in the first place, yet you yourself have no problem treating others the same way? Ridiculous. There was actually a case where he (Muhammad) wanted to exterminate an entire Jewish tribe, the Banu Qaynuqa of Medina, because they killed a Muslim man after he killed a Jewish shopkeeper. But thankfully, Ibn Ubayy convinced him to just steal their property and exile them all to Syria. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]This is likely because of the idea that Allah knew what was best for people whether they knew or not.[/quote] What? [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Again, shitty practices but it's not like Muhammad and his conquerors were the only people to use these tactics in conquest (byzantines, crusaders, countless others)[/quote] And your point is what exactly? Nobody disputes any of this. But for claiming that this a religion of peace, you're really not helping your case by conceding just how much of a conquering holy warrior Muhammad himself was nor how absolutely atrocious his behavior was towards people he went to war with. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Iran uses executions to punish heinous crimes more often than they do punishing shit like homosexuality and witchcraft.[/quote] Again, what's your point? They still execute people for homosexuality and witchcraft. Does that make it acceptable? The correct answer to that last question is "no", by the way. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]I wont say that they outright /haven't/ executed for that other shit, as I dont have a full list of every execution in Iran ever, but I know that even in Iran they are more progressive than Saudi Arabia.[/quote] Not really, no, they're still just as barbaric with hanging people and stoning people over some of the most trivial offenses (again, like homosexuality and witchcraft). [url=http://nottoomuchcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/iran_hanging.jpg]NSFW[/url] [url=http://nottoomuchcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/publichanging.jpg]NSFW[/url] [url=http://www.gaypatriot.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/hangingl468x318nh0.jpg]NSFW[/url] [url=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vkAnhL7OH1E/TGSs0iYJpLI/AAAAAAAACEM/i7BLOgGwja8/s1600/iran_execution-of+gays.jpg]NSFW[/url] [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/special-report-the-punishment-was-death-by-stoning-the-crime-having-a-mobile-phone-8846585.html]Have some fun facts on stoning while we're at it.[/url] Did you know Iran uses it more than any other country in the Middle East? [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]I can't speak for Pakistan. Don't know enough about it.[/quote] That's not surprising. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Afghanistan doesnt have nearly as many executions as Saudi has, but the law there is shaky at best. Several people have been executed there without trial if my memory serves me right.[/quote] As many [i]official[/i] executions. Extrajudicial killings are still a very serious problem in Afghanistan. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Can't speak for Yemen.[/quote] Again, not surprising. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Contradictions in a holy book? Inconcievable![/quote] It's pretty straightforward stuff actually that doesn't contradict itself. At least as far as the treatment of disbelievers, polytheists, retreating enemies, etc. are concerned. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]That's not a matter of fact.[/quote] Yeah it is. The Quran is drenched in it verses condoning everything from martyrdom in battle for God's sake to running down retreating enemies and massacring them to actively fighting disbelievers and polytheists and other such "wrongdoers" until there is no more disbelief, and Muhammad himself stands as a greater monument to war and conquest and violence than even the Quran does. You even conceded this historical fact earlier. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Again, extremist literalists.[/quote] No, just literalists. The religion is in and of itself extreme. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Very few middle eastern countries that have islamic law incorporated at all do this.[/quote] Well no, actually, some of the most significant Middle Eastern countries have Sharia law implemented in full. I didn't even bother to list of all the others who implement it on a personal basis nor a regional basis, but it's applicable to most of them save for the Mediterranean ones. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Saudi is not a progressive state.[/quote] Neither are Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen. Most Middle Eastern countries at not progressive in any sense of the term; it's an assbackwards region of the world that's full of violence and conflict for plenty of reasons, but religion especially happens to be a big reason. There are a handful of bastions of sanity over there. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]I didnt mean they're similar in every single microscopic way, I was using it as a general metaphor.[/quote] Except even as a "general metaphor", it still doesn't work. They are not similar to each other, they are not even close to being similar to one another. They are extremely different from one another, and that's how simple it is. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44760313]Again, no.[/quote] I'm inclined to think by this point that you're just an apologist for this shitty religion, in light of the course this conversation has taken. You've conceded that Muhammad was a conquering holy warrior who used violence and persecution to achieve his religious domination of the region (and was neither a man of peace nor a prophet of peace), you've conceded that some of the most significant countries in the Middle East to this very day continue to use Sharia law (derived from the Quran and the Sunnah) to determine how they'll treat their people (and they happen to treat them shittily as a result), yet in spite of all this you simple can't admit how backwards of a religion Islam is, was, and will continue to be at this rate. Oh well.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44761512]It's not whether or not I agree with it, it's spreading blatant ignorance. Religion's functions go against the scientific method. With religion you do not need evidence, you just take it "on faith". This means that you cannot have skeptical integrity.[/quote] Um you realize there are people who believe [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution]theistic evolution[/url], right? Not really as incompatible with modern scientific thinking as one would think. Stop generalizing all people with religious beliefs, they are not the Borg.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44761512]It's not whether or not I agree with it, it's spreading blatant ignorance. Religion's functions go against the scientific method. With religion you do not need evidence, you just take it "on faith". This means that you cannot have skeptical integrity.[/QUOTE] If you're going to talk about skeptical integrity, have you personally derived the speed of light? The earth's circumference? The fact that smoking causes cancer? Of course, other people have, but unless you've done it too, you're simply taking their word on faith.

[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;44755113]I don't see Christians whipping fuckers for disagreeing.[/QUOTE] Christians are whipping gay people in Africa right now

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44761460]Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE etc. won't agree with the rules in Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE] Not good examples of enlightened and progressive countries.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44753453]Nothing to do with the people in charge, no sir.[/QUOTE] When it comes to fundamentalist countries it's not just the people in charge, the greater part by far of the population is so indoctrinated in their beliefs that they will lash out at anyone who does anything which violates them.

[QUOTE=Kristviljan;44768287]When it comes to fundamentalist countries it's not just the people in charge, the greater part by far of the population is so indoctrinated in their beliefs that they will lash out at anyone who does anything which violates them.[/QUOTE] And this is what we figured out with Afghanistan, where Islamic extrajudicial killings utilizing Sharia are still very much commonplace. Why we honestly expected anything different there I have no idea. The Afghans probably aren't so entrenched in their backwards beliefs that they can never change, we're starting to see change in the younger generations, but it will definitely take a long, long time for the entire country to achieve any significant progressiveness. Part of that is due to the corruption they're drowning in, but most of it honestly has to do with the fact that so many of the ordinary people have been indoctrinated by this religious literalist crap. When you march into a country that's adhered to a religion like Islam that treats women like property, encourages child marriages, and brutal punishments for some of the most absurd hocus pocus "crimes" imaginable, you can't just say to them "You will not believe in this batshit anymore or behave this way"; they will resist such common sense tooth and nail because they don't know any better. They will be literalist for a long while yet.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44767542]If you're going to talk about skeptical integrity, have you personally derived the speed of light? The earth's circumference? The fact that smoking causes cancer? Of course, other people have, but unless you've done it too, you're simply taking their word on faith.[/QUOTE] Nope. If someone, or a group claimed something (Like that the earth is only ~7K years old) Then they must provide evidence. Science's evidence is quite clearly demonstrated: relativity is the reason electromagnets work (which I have created) [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0[/url] Or a long answer: [quote]Most respected scientific papers, which introduce new concepts into widespread discussion, are peer-reviewed. Peer review is the process by which scientists in the relevant field are tasked with judging the study detailed in the paper for soundness of experimental design, data analysis, and conclusions. A critical requirement for a paper to pass peer-review is that the study must be described such that it can be replicated easily by a scientist wishing to subject the conclusions to another test. In this way, other scientists can either repeat or challenge the work that produced controversial findings. Over time, scientists can amass evidence, confirm hypotheses, and eventually refine theories. Claims that scientists make, therefore, are necessarily supported by developed systems of logic and reason applied to available evidence. Anyone with the resources to replicate an experiment or the intellectual capacity to critique conclusions is free to do so. This leads to a continual challenging of the status quo and the development of a more complete and nuanced understanding of our world. Faith is not a tool of science, as faith does not promote greater understanding of the world in this same way. The value of inquiry without faith can be demonstrated easily in the modern world. The reliable performance of so many of our modern technological conveniences depends on the repeatability of scientific findings. For example, modern telecommunications technologies, which use the exchange of "packets" of encoded information over a multitude of media from wireless technology to fiber optics, is able to relay complex information thousands of miles around the world in a way that can be decoded by a recipient within seconds. The rapid delivery and high fidelity of such data are not dependent upon faith but upon repeatable phenomena discovered and manipulated using a rigorous, evidence-based approach. Is a cell phone powered by faith? Of course not![/quote]

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44753907]In the Middle Ages Islam was the most enlightened and progressive religion in the world. [/QUOTE] IIRC that was mostly due to capturing technology from conquered foes.

[QUOTE=proch;44770278]IIRC that was mostly due to capturing technology from conquered foes.[/QUOTE] Actually, it was pretty cool during this period of time, Neil Degrasse Tyson did a presentation about it: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suau4lbn0jI[/url]

[QUOTE=markedOne;44753445]Wow they actually still believe in "witchcraft" and "sorcery"?[/QUOTE] They don't. It's one way like another to justify alienating an entire country. If it wasnt religion it'd be literally anything else.

Can someone fucking survive 1000 lashes?

[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;44771188]Can someone fucking survive 1000 lashes?[/QUOTE] Probably not since they would pass out long before the full punishment would be carried out.