Is it really Islam's teachings that make Musllims violent?

[Angra Mainyu]

That does not answer my question. My question is why you think they use the self-identification criterion as a means to determine who is a Muslim.

Because they support both punishment for Muslims who don't follow the faith, and religious pluralism.

But that is not a reason to think that those who support killing apostates (or most of them) use the self-identification criterion as a means to determine who is a Muslim.

For example, the classification of apostates (murtadd) in Islam (Shia and Sunni) is between fitri murtad (a person born to at least one Muslim parent who is not a Muslim, though of course they're still classified as Muslim), and milli murtad (Muslim converts who reject Islam).

It is entirely compatible with religious pluralism, if by that you mean that they say Sharia law only applies to Muslims.

Now, granted, it might be that not all of the people who support killing apostates accepts the Muslim classification I just described, but given that that is the usual classification, and given the lack of evidence in support of the self-identification criterion, the claim that all, or most, or even a non-negligible percentage of them use self-identification is unwarranted.

Some people do lots of stupid things. Is that typical of Muslims?

No, but that misses the point entirely. The point is that:

1. There are plenty of examples of people accused or even punished for apostasy even if they never self-identified as Muslims when adults - or ever -, and even if that is known by the accusers.
2. Plenty of sources (including Muslim ones) classify apostates into two groups, one of which is composed of people who were born to at least one Muslim parent. Self-identification is never mentioned.
3. You've provided no evidence of any Muslims who say that apostates should be killed, but only those who self-identify as Muslims when adults qualify.

Given all of the above, your claim that self-identification is the criterion used to assess who is a Muslim by those people who respond to the poll and support the death penalty for apostasy (or even most of them, or even a significant percentage of them), appears entirely unwarranted.

I could, but that would generalising about a global religion. I very much doubt there is a single criterion.

Actually, you already generalized like that, even if you did not say so explicitly. Remember, you said:

Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Now, you used the word "Muslims" here. Did you mean all Muslims? If so, that's clearly false.
But context indicates your claim is about Muslims who support punishment for those things, but also support applying Sharia only to Muslims, or at least to most of them.

My question is: why do you think those Muslims, or at least most of them, use the self-identification criterion in order to assess who is to be punished for apostasy?

Your replies provide no good reason to support your claim.

It seems like you're trying to build a case for Islam killing those who try to leave, but you don't have any evidence for it and you don't know enough about the religion to argue for it, so you're trying to extraploate it from my arguements. That's not going to work. If you want to know more about the religion, you need to find out more about the religion.

No, it does not seem like I'm trying to do that. It may seem like that to you, but it shouldn't.

Again, I'm asking "why do you think those Muslims, or at least most of them, use the self-identification criterion in order to assess who is to be punished for apostasy?"

The only case I'm building - which I already built - is for the lack of warrant of your belief about what those Muslims do, due to the lack of warrant for your belief the self-identification criterion (your belief has other problems, but at least it has that problem).

Not for stopping being Muslim. But for claiming to be Muslim while not actually following the faith, yes, I know people who would support very harsh punishments. Some people have very little tolerance for half-way house co-religionists. However, it's a pretty rare view, and tends to be focused amongst those who come from countries that don't have a strong or cohesive legal system outside of religious law.

You miss my point. My point is that the Muslims you know do not support killing apostates (or any other harsh punishments), and hence do not support the self-identification criterion as a means of identifying who is to be killed (or otherwise punished) as an apostate.
But moreover, even if some Muslims you do know use self-identification as a criterion to find out who is an apostate, there are plenty of Muslims who do not, including of course those who accept the classification of apostates in Islam, one of which categories is precisely composed of people who were born to a Muslim parent, and then renounced Islam, regardless of self-identification.

So here we have a woman denying the government has ever had legal jurisdiction over her, who married outside the government's legal system, one of the people they'd been fighting for decades. And you think this is about words in a book?

I'm afraid you're not even engaging my points. You're engaging what you believe my points are, but which is not closely related to what they are, and then go on to make false assessments about my intentions, or alleged desperation. I would invite you to read our exchange more carefully.

 

[Bomb#20]

It gets worse, if that were possible. In some countries, particularly Iran, you can be considered to inherit apostasy. A lot of Baha'is have been executed for apostasy because their religion is an offshoot from Islam. The notion that self-identification is the customary criterion for deciding other people's religion is projection.

Hmm... but Iran is a fascist state with the same relation to Islam as Nazi Germany had to Christianity. ... When Iran's constitution was drafted putting Khomeini at the top, the plan was for Khomeini to guarantee democracy. ... Calling Iran an Islamic state is like calling Nazi Germany a Christian one. While true on paper, few of the faithful would agree.

Bottom line, Iran is not a good example of what an Islamic state is and it really doesn't matter how they chose to interpret the Koran or how they judge on anything. It still doesn't prove that any of that was inevitable. ...

Funny, I don't recall offering an opinion on whether Iran was an Islamic state, whatever the hell that is. Blaming the treatment of Baha'is on Khomeini is just historical ignorance. Iran isn't the center of Baha'i persecution because of the revolution; it's because Iran is the center of Baha'i. They've been persecuted there since the religion was founded there in the 19th century. After the 1906 revolution established constitutional monarchy, Parliament established freedom of religion for Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, but not for Baha'is. After the Pahlavis brought back absolute monarchy, they protected Baha'is when they felt secure and persecuted them when they felt they needed to throw a sop to the masses. What the current mullahs do to them is business as usual. Moreover, Baha'is are persecuted in many other Muslim countries too. There are fatwas against them in Egypt for apostasy, where the religion has been illegal since Nasser outlawed it and several Baha'is have been arrested for it. Under U.S. pressure, Morocco commuted three Baha'is death sentences.

This isn't about what the faithful would agree is an Islamic state. This is about who the faithful would agree practices a different religion vs. who the faithful would agree is a heretical Muslim. The theory that what religion you belong to should be determined by self-identification -- by individual conscience -- is a recent Western concept. It grew out of our Protestant-Catholic wars and the resulting Enlightenment. The traditional view was that your religion owned you. Togo wrote "Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law." Do you know of any evidence that most Muslims think self-identification is the correct criterion? That it's up to the individual rather than up to Islam to define which religion you belong to? If you know of some, present it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmm... but Iran is a fascist state with the same relation to Islam as Nazi Germany had to Christianity. ... When Iran's constitution was drafted putting Khomeini at the top, the plan was for Khomeini to guarantee democracy. ... Calling Iran an Islamic state is like calling Nazi Germany a Christian one. While true on paper, few of the faithful would agree.

Bottom line, Iran is not a good example of what an Islamic state is and it really doesn't matter how they chose to interpret the Koran or how they judge on anything. It still doesn't prove that any of that was inevitable. ...

Funny, I don't recall offering an opinion on whether Iran was an Islamic state, whatever the hell that is. Blaming the treatment of Baha'is on Khomeini is just historical ignorance. Iran isn't the center of Baha'i persecution because of the revolution; it's because Iran is the center of Baha'i. They've been persecuted there since the religion was founded there in the 19th century. After the 1906 revolution established constitutional monarchy, Parliament established freedom of religion for Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, but not for Baha'is. After the Pahlavis brought back absolute monarchy, they protected Baha'is when they felt secure and persecuted them when they felt they needed to throw a sop to the masses. What the current mullahs do to them is business as usual. Moreover, Baha'is are persecuted in many other Muslim countries too. There are fatwas against them in Egypt for apostasy, where the religion has been illegal since Nasser outlawed it and several Baha'is have been arrested for it. Under U.S. pressure, Morocco commuted three Baha'is death sentences.

This isn't about what the faithful would agree is an Islamic state. This is about who the faithful would agree practices a different religion vs. who the faithful would agree is a heretical Muslim. The theory that what religion you belong to should be determined by self-identification -- by individual conscience -- is a recent Western concept. It grew out of our Protestant-Catholic wars and the resulting Enlightenment. The traditional view was that your religion owned you. Togo wrote "Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law." Do you know of any evidence that most Muslims think self-identification is the correct criterion? That it's up to the individual rather than up to Islam to define which religion you belong to? If you know of some, present it.

The difference between monarchy and fascism is splitting hairs. I'd say Iran under the Pavlavhis was also a fascist state using the same kind of terror tactics to stay in power. Religion has always been used and abused by a weak ruling class.

But on the freedom of religion. The Ottoman Empire, ie Islamic Caliphate also had freedom of religion. You weren't allowed to be an atheist according to Ottoman rule. But that was a judicial technicality. The religion you picked would determine what law book you'd be tried under. The Ottomans had parallel sets of law systems in the same territories. Very confusing. But each Ottoman citizen was officially free to pick religions. The important thing to keep in mind is that each community elected their own religious leaders (without influence by the Caliph) and could freely create criminal laws according to their own moral code. It didn't cover stuff like taxation law. But still, remarkably free. Pre-dating Enlightenment style self-identification by 300 years. No, it isn't exactly the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. Still religious freedom.

Why was the Ottoman Empire so much more progressive than the West? Because it was an empire based on trade with a population where 80% were not Muslim. They were liberal and progressive because they had to be. Same goes for Enlightenment Europe. The French had had enough corrupt priests. None of this is based on exegesis. It's real real politik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)

Also... all Abrahamic religions have this commandment :“You shall have no other gods before me".

We know how to interpret it because we have the context. This is straight up religious intolerance. This isn't a question of personal conscience. It's an divine demand to be intolerant. Not believing in God is a mortal sin punishable by death. I'd say this puts Judaism, Islam and Christianity on an equal footing as regards to intolerance and persecution of religious minorities. If one of them can interpret this in any other way, then all of them can.

 

[Bomb#20]

...Do you know of any evidence that most Muslims think self-identification is the correct criterion? That it's up to the individual rather than up to Islam to define which religion you belong to? If you know of some, present it.

The difference between monarchy and fascism is splitting hairs. I'd say Iran under the Pavlavhis was also a fascist state using the same kind of terror tactics to stay in power. Religion has always been used and abused by a weak ruling class.

Duh. The point is, the way they were using it was by giving the people what they perceived that the people wanted.

But on the freedom of religion. The Ottoman Empire, ie Islamic Caliphate also had freedom of religion.

You're offering the Ottoman Empire into evidence as to what 21st century Muslims typically think?

You weren't allowed to be an atheist according to Ottoman rule. But that was a judicial technicality. The religion you picked would determine what law book you'd be tried under. The Ottomans had parallel sets of law systems in the same territories. Very confusing. But each Ottoman citizen was officially free to pick religions.

What's your evidence for that? The usual reason for changing religion is for marriage. Interfaith marriage was illegal; but yes, of course each Ottoman citizen could convert to Islam since Islam welcomes converts, so if a Christian and a Muslim wanted to get married, no problem, the Christian could pick a different religion. But what evidence is there that a Muslim could convert to Christianity?

The important thing to keep in mind is that each community elected their own religious leaders (without influence by the Caliph)

Oh for the love of god! Seriously? Sultans interfered in dhimmi religious politics with depressing regularity.

But still, remarkably free. Pre-dating Enlightenment style self-identification by 300 years. No, it isn't exactly the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. Still religious freedom.

According to your own link, "Israel, too, keeps a system based on the Ottoman-derived Millet, in which personal status is based on a person's belonging to a religious community. ... the state of Israel reserves the right to determine to which community a person belongs, and officially register him or her accordingly — even when the person concerned objects to being part of a religious community (e.g., staunch atheists of Jewish origin are registered as members of the Jewish religious community, a practice derived ultimately from the fact that the Ottoman Millet ultimately designated a person's ethnicity more than a person's beliefs)."

Moreover, the Millet system coexisted for three hundred years with the Ottoman practice of seizing the strongest boys from each Christian village, usually around age 10, forcibly converting them to Islam, and raising them to become soldiers. Self-identification, my ass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hmm... but Iran is a fascist state with the same relation to Islam as Nazi Germany had to Christianity. It's just a tool to manipulate and oppress. When Iran's constitution was drafted putting Khomeini at the top, the plan was for Khomeini to guarantee democracy. He would only put his nose into politics if things were going astray. Nobody had envisaged him swooping in and becoming a de facto dictator. Calling Iran an Islamic state is like calling Nazi Germany a Christian one. While true on paper, few of the faithful would agree.

Bottom line, Iran is not a good example of what an Islamic state is and it really doesn't matter how they chose to interpret the Koran or how they judge on anything. It still doesn't prove that any of that was inevitable. With the same logic, an atheistic government doesn't automatically lead to the country turning into China or USSR.

And we don't need to wonder about how an Islamic state would be. There are plenty of Muslims in the west who vote. We know how they vote. So we know most of them are pretty fucking far from being any kind of extremist.

Iran is an example of an Islamist state. They look similar to other Islamist states, they just started from a better economic position so they aren't as much of a basket case.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Hmm... but Iran is a fascist state with the same relation to Islam as Nazi Germany had to Christianity. It's just a tool to manipulate and oppress. When Iran's constitution was drafted putting Khomeini at the top, the plan was for Khomeini to guarantee democracy. He would only put his nose into politics if things were going astray. Nobody had envisaged him swooping in and becoming a de facto dictator. Calling Iran an Islamic state is like calling Nazi Germany a Christian one. While true on paper, few of the faithful would agree.

Bottom line, Iran is not a good example of what an Islamic state is and it really doesn't matter how they chose to interpret the Koran or how they judge on anything. It still doesn't prove that any of that was inevitable. With the same logic, an atheistic government doesn't automatically lead to the country turning into China or USSR.

And we don't need to wonder about how an Islamic state would be. There are plenty of Muslims in the west who vote. We know how they vote. So we know most of them are pretty fucking far from being any kind of extremist.

Iran is an example of an Islamist state.

No it isn't. In fact in terms of national policy Iran is rather unique in its disinterest for doctrinal squabbles outside its own borders. Primarily this is because Iran is predominantly Shia and Shi'ites are accustomed to being the odd man out (similar to how the Eastern Orthodox never seems to get involved in Catholic/Protestant spats).

Their NATIONAL ambitions, on the other hand, are pretty far reaching from both a political and strategic point of view. To the extent that Iran has a political interest in supporting beleaguered Shi'ites abroad, this manifests as a religious issue; to the further extent that Iran has an interest in destabilizing both Israel and Saudi Arabia, they are also prone to support dissidents and/or militants who oppose their regimes.

But to call Iran "Islamist" is like comparing America to the crusaders. It's a Muslim country that interprets the world from a Muslim point of view. But it is Iran -- and not Islam -- that they are most interested in promoting.

They look similar to other Islamist states

Yeah, they have the same nose and hair color. Must be related.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The difference between monarchy and fascism is splitting hairs. I'd say Iran under the Pavlavhis was also a fascist state using the same kind of terror tactics to stay in power. Religion has always been used and abused by a weak ruling class.

Duh. The point is, the way they were using it was by giving the people what they perceived that the people wanted.

Monarchy and fascism retain power by playing out factions against each other and blaming all ills (falsely) on minorities. They exploit the human natural propensity for xenophobia. And they use propaganda to affirm the people's irrational fears. So claiming that this is what the people of Iran want is ignorant to the extreme. Reminds me of a speech I heard yesterday by a Jewish holocaust survivor. His conclusion is that we haven't learned anything from the holocaust. Your comment confirms it.

But on the freedom of religion. The Ottoman Empire, ie Islamic Caliphate also had freedom of religion.

You're offering the Ottoman Empire into evidence as to what 21st century Muslims typically think?

No. The contention is whether or not Muslim identified countries are capable of religious freedom. The Ottoman empire proved that it is.

You weren't allowed to be an atheist according to Ottoman rule. But that was a judicial technicality. The religion you picked would determine what law book you'd be tried under. The Ottomans had parallel sets of law systems in the same territories. Very confusing. But each Ottoman citizen was officially free to pick religions.

What's your evidence for that? The usual reason for changing religion is for marriage. Interfaith marriage was illegal; but yes, of course each Ottoman citizen could convert to Islam since Islam welcomes converts, so if a Christian and a Muslim wanted to get married, no problem, the Christian could pick a different religion. But what evidence is there that a Muslim could convert to Christianity?

Actually it was initially illegal for Ottoman Christians to convert to Islam. The reason being to emphasize how the Sultan respected Christian faith. Also, churches and Synagogues were placed under the Sultans protection. Any attack on Christians and Jews was seen as an attack on the Sultans person and treated as such legally. The Sultans went to great length to demonstrate how they didn't give preferential treatment to Muslims.

One example being how the imperial administration was predominantly run by Christians right up until the end. The reason was that when the Ottoman conquered Christian lands the educated elites were all Christians. Since the Ottoman empire was (on paper) meritocratic meant that the local well educated Christians got high positions in the government.

This btw is the reason how the practice of wearing burkhas spread throughout the Islamic world. It was first a pagan Greek practice. The practice continued when the converted to Christianity. The burkha became a cultural symbol for Ottoman middle-class Christians. When they were sent out as governors in the provinces it became a symbol of Ottoman power. That and the fez for men. It then became a trend even among Muslims. Following British occupation of Egypt it became a nationalistic Muslim symbol and was adopted by the Muslim brotherhood. It being banned by the colonial authorities guaranteed it's practice adopted by all nationalistic and militant Muslims everywhere.

Calling the Ottoman empire religiously intolerant is absurd. They weren't. When queen Isabella expelled all the Jews from Spain it was the Ottoman empire who opened their doors to let them in. At this time the Ottoman empire was the richest empire in the world. The really didn't have to. But they strongly identified with being cosmopolitan and open to the world.

The important thing to keep in mind is that each community elected their own religious leaders (without influence by the Caliph)

Oh for the love of god! Seriously? Sultans interfered in dhimmi religious politics with depressing regularity.

he he. I agree that it was mostly on paper. But that was the ambition.

But still, remarkably free. Pre-dating Enlightenment style self-identification by 300 years. No, it isn't exactly the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. Still religious freedom.

According to your own link, "Israel, too, keeps a system based on the Ottoman-derived Millet, in which personal status is based on a person's belonging to a religious community. ... the state of Israel reserves the right to determine to which community a person belongs, and officially register him or her accordingly — even when the person concerned objects to being part of a religious community (e.g., staunch atheists of Jewish origin are registered as members of the Jewish religious community, a practice derived ultimately from the fact that the Ottoman Millet ultimately designated a person's ethnicity more than a person's beliefs)."

I just said that it's not the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. It's in the text you are right now quoting. You're also equivocating between different types of religious freedom as if you're hoping that I won't catch you doing it.

Moreover, the Millet system coexisted for three hundred years with the Ottoman practice of seizing the strongest boys from each Christian village, usually around age 10, forcibly converting them to Islam, and raising them to become soldiers. Self-identification, my ass.

I'd say the devsirme system makes the opposite point. The men picked as Janissaries had the opportunity to have a career and climb in the hierarchy. This was often highly advantageous for the villages and families who got prominent Janissaries. Opportunities poor farmers otherwise wouldn't have. So the image of the devsirme system as universally unpopular just isn't true. High ranking Janissaries wielded real power in the empire. It wasn't some token the oppressed people's were thrown. Granted that the Janissaries existed to mitigate the threat from Muslim nobles. Even so, the fact that the Janissaries were recruited from non-Muslims was to demonstrate how the Ottoman rulers respected non-Muslims. Not the other way around.

And since Janissaries were officially property of the Sultan, ie slaves, they had zero freedom regarding anything. So obviously not religion either. I never said the Ottoman empire was a modern liberal and democratic state. It wasn't. But that wasn't by point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Iran is an example of an Islamist state.

No it isn't. In fact in terms of national policy Iran is rather unique in its disinterest for doctrinal squabbles outside its own borders. Primarily this is because Iran is predominantly Shia and Shi'ites are accustomed to being the odd man out (similar to how the Eastern Orthodox never seems to get involved in Catholic/Protestant spats).

Their NATIONAL ambitions, on the other hand, are pretty far reaching from both a political and strategic point of view. To the extent that Iran has a political interest in supporting beleaguered Shi'ites abroad, this manifests as a religious issue; to the further extent that Iran has an interest in destabilizing both Israel and Saudi Arabia, they are also prone to support dissidents and/or militants who oppose their regimes.

But to call Iran "Islamist" is like comparing America to the crusaders. It's a Muslim country that interprets the world from a Muslim point of view. But it is Iran -- and not Islam -- that they are most interested in promoting.

They look similar to other Islamist states

Yeah, they have the same nose and hair color. Must be related.

I think Shia Islam should be seen as a blending of Zoroastrianism and Islam. It's a jolly compromise between the two. I'm willing to bet that every aspect of Shia Islam that sets it apart from Sunni Islam is a Zoroastrian practice they held onto when Persia converted.

 

[Togo]

Some people do lots of stupid things. Is that typical of Muslims?

No, but that misses the point entirely.

It may miss the point you're trying to make, but the point I'm trying to make is that your points are irrelevent to the OP unless you can answer one of two questions:

Is Islam more violent than other religions?
Is it really the philosophy of Islam that makes this the case?

My further point is that, in the absence of an answer to either of these questions, armchair musings on the nature of a religion that you don't really understand aren't very useful. We can discuss murtadd all day long, and it doesn't make any difference.

...your claim that self-identification is the criterion...

That's merely an opinion, based on the Muslims I know, a few of whom are interested in punishing those who follow Islam improperly, but none of whom are interested in people who don't actively follow Islam, regardless of their birth and upbringing. It's not the basis of any position I hold, nor is it a claim I'm advancing.

It seems like you're trying to build a case for Islam killing those who try to leave, but you don't have any evidence for it and you don't know enough about the religion to argue for it, so you're trying to extraploate it from my arguements. That's not going to work. If you want to know more about the religion, you need to find out more about the religion.

No, it does not seem like I'm trying to do that. It may seem like that to you, but it shouldn't.

Then I must confess bafflement at the point you're trying to make, which seems entirely focused on a claim you feel I've advanced, and nothing to do with the OP.

The only case I'm building - which I already built - is for the lack of warrant of your belief about what those Muslims do, due to the lack of warrant for your belief the self-identification criterion

Well I certainly have no hard evidence on whether my impressions gained from Muslims friends, colleagues co-workers and acquaintances are representative of Islam as a global religion, nor have I tried to claim otherwise. I'm sorry if that wasn't understood. I have advanced alternative explanations for some of the pronouncements you've made. I did this because our understanding of how Islam works is very different. However, my position in this discussion is not based on any such understanding - it's based on the total inability of anyone in this thread to provide evidence for the questions in the OP. The fact that I can, quickly and easily, put an entirely different interpretation on the data cited is an easy way of demonstrating that the data does not support the claims made by those who cited it.

For example, you cited the the example of a woman in Sudan convicted of apostasy. I pointed out that the motives and background around this was almost certainly political. Your reply ignored that entirely, and simply stated that there were 'plenty of examples of apostasy'. No, there aren't. There are plenty of examples that are ostensibly about apostasy, but aren't primarily religious. All you've demonstrated is an ability to mistake one for the other.

Before we get into the details of what views and behaviours you feel are held by (a minority of?) Muslims around the world, we first need to get past this idea that any observation made of a Muslim is a feature of the Global Religious that is Islam, rather than, you know, the aftermath of a 25-year civil war.

 

[Togo]

We know how to interpret it because we have the context. This is straight up religious intolerance. This isn't a question of personal conscience. It's an divine demand to be intolerant. Not believing in God is a mortal sin punishable by death. I'd say this puts Judaism, Islam and Christianity on an equal footing as regards to intolerance and persecution of religious minorities. If one of them can interpret this in any other way, then all of them can.

One of things that always impresses me about Christian art is the skll with which various symbols are used. Christ as the Lamb of god is an ostensibly pacifist image, but that doesn't stop images of an armoured lamb holding a flag urging on crusader soliders.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We know how to interpret it because we have the context. This is straight up religious intolerance. This isn't a question of personal conscience. It's an divine demand to be intolerant. Not believing in God is a mortal sin punishable by death. I'd say this puts Judaism, Islam and Christianity on an equal footing as regards to intolerance and persecution of religious minorities. If one of them can interpret this in any other way, then all of them can.

One of things that always impresses me about Christian art is the skll with which various symbols are used. Christ as the Lamb of god is an ostensibly pacifist image, but that doesn't stop images of an armoured lamb holding a flag urging on crusader soliders.

he he... yeah. The single most confusing thing about religion. It's not so much cherry-picking as absurdo-picking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iran is an example of an Islamist state.

No it isn't. In fact in terms of national policy Iran is rather unique in its disinterest for doctrinal squabbles outside its own borders. Primarily this is because Iran is predominantly Shia and Shi'ites are accustomed to being the odd man out (similar to how the Eastern Orthodox never seems to get involved in Catholic/Protestant spats).

Their NATIONAL ambitions, on the other hand, are pretty far reaching from both a political and strategic point of view. To the extent that Iran has a political interest in supporting beleaguered Shi'ites abroad, this manifests as a religious issue; to the further extent that Iran has an interest in destabilizing both Israel and Saudi Arabia, they are also prone to support dissidents and/or militants who oppose their regimes.

But to call Iran "Islamist" is like comparing America to the crusaders. It's a Muslim country that interprets the world from a Muslim point of view. But it is Iran -- and not Islam -- that they are most interested in promoting.

They look similar to other Islamist states

Yeah, they have the same nose and hair color. Must be related.

Everybody wants to promote their own brand of Islam, Iran isn't unique in that.

I call them Islamist because they impose a pretty strict version of Islam internally and they keep trying to export it at gunpoint.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No it isn't. In fact in terms of national policy Iran is rather unique in its disinterest for doctrinal squabbles outside its own borders. Primarily this is because Iran is predominantly Shia and Shi'ites are accustomed to being the odd man out (similar to how the Eastern Orthodox never seems to get involved in Catholic/Protestant spats).

Their NATIONAL ambitions, on the other hand, are pretty far reaching from both a political and strategic point of view. To the extent that Iran has a political interest in supporting beleaguered Shi'ites abroad, this manifests as a religious issue; to the further extent that Iran has an interest in destabilizing both Israel and Saudi Arabia, they are also prone to support dissidents and/or militants who oppose their regimes.

But to call Iran "Islamist" is like comparing America to the crusaders. It's a Muslim country that interprets the world from a Muslim point of view. But it is Iran -- and not Islam -- that they are most interested in promoting.

They look similar to other Islamist states

Yeah, they have the same nose and hair color. Must be related.

Everybody wants to promote their own brand of Islam, Iran isn't unique in that.

Of course. But again, Iran is a lot more interested in promoting its own national interests than anything else. By any meaningful measure, Iran is NOT an Islamist country; in point of fact, it's really an ultra-nationalist country with a highly conservative Islamic government.

I call them Islamist because they impose a pretty strict version of Islam internally and they keep trying to export it at gunpoint.

Except Iran isn't exporting its interpretation of Islam to anyone who doesn't already hold to it (e.g. Iraqi Shi'ites). We're not seeing Iranian terrorists -- or for that matter, Iranian soldiers -- imposing Shia Islam on Afghanistan. The Revolutionary Guards are not attacking the Kurds or the Turks, not trying to conquer huge swaths of Iraq, not imposing a remarkably strict version of Sharia on areas they have illegally annexed. They are not even demanding the imposition of Sharia -- let alone Shi'ite interpretations of Sharia -- on the Palestinians, whom they morally and materially support.

Put simply: Iran has no reason to engage in Islamism because Iran is disinterested in how the rest of the world interprets Islam. Iranians see themselves as IRANIANS, not merely as Shi'ites, or for that matter merely as Muslims. They are members of a nation and a culture that has existed continuously for thousands of years, and that, more than anything else, defines their identity as well as it informs their foreign policy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It may miss the point you're trying to make, but the point I'm trying to make is that your points are irrelevent to the OP unless you can answer one of two questions:

Is Islam more violent than other religions?
Is it really the philosophy of Islam that makes this the case?

My further point is that, in the absence of an answer to either of these questions, armchair musings on the nature of a religion that you don't really understand aren't very useful. We can discuss murtadd all day long, and it doesn't make any difference.

You said:

Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Is your claim about self-identification irrelevant to the OP?

If your claim is relevant to the OP, then asking you to support the claim, and/or showing that your claim is unwarranted, is also relevant to to OP.
If your claim is irrelevant to the OP, then why do you object to my responses on the basis that they are or might be irrelevant to the OP?

That's merely an opinion, based on the Muslims I know, a few of whom are interested in punishing those who follow Islam improperly, but none of whom are interested in people who don't actively follow Islam, regardless of their birth and upbringing. It's not the basis of any position I hold, nor is it a claim I'm advancing.

First, you made that point in the context of the debate with Bomb#20, and in support of the claim that Muslims believed that their religion would be policed, but implying that they didn't want to inflict punishments on non-Muslims.
Second, if some of the people you know are interested in punishing those who follow Islam improperly, but are not interested in punishment those who do not follow Islam actively, then what does that have to do with whether they self-identified as Muslims when adults? For that matter, it seems the people you knew would not be interested in punishing people who were self-identifying Muslims as adults, but later apostatized and became non-Muslims. Do you personally know any Muslims who wants to punish apostates (i.e., murtadd)?
Third, why would you make that claim without taking into account the evidence of all of the cases in which many Muslims punish former Muslims, or people who were never Muslims but who were born to a Muslim parent and as such get classified as Muslim regardless?

Then I must confess bafflement at the point you're trying to make, which seems entirely focused on a claim you feel I've advanced, and nothing to do with the OP.

No, it's based on the claims you made, not just that I feel you made them. But I read the exchange, and it's clear to me that I've been more than detailed and surely clear enough, so I'll leave it at that.

Well I certainly have no hard evidence on whether my impressions gained from Muslims friends, colleagues co-workers and acquaintances are representative of Islam as a global religion, nor have I tried to claim otherwise. I'm sorry if that wasn't understood. I have advanced alternative explanations for some of the pronouncements you've made. I did this because our understanding of how Islam works is very different. However, my position in this discussion is not based on any such understanding - it's based on the total inability of anyone in this thread to provide evidence for the questions in the OP. The fact that I can, quickly and easily, put an entirely different interpretation on the data cited is an easy way of demonstrating that the data does not support the claims made by those who cited it.

For example, you cited the the example of a woman in Sudan convicted of apostasy. I pointed out that the motives and background around this was almost certainly political. Your reply ignored that entirely, and simply stated that there were 'plenty of examples of apostasy'. No, there aren't. There are plenty of examples that are ostensibly about apostasy, but aren't primarily religious. All you've demonstrated is an ability to mistake one for the other.

There are of course plenty of examples, and the very fact that there is a law punishing apostasy and which applies to people who were never Muslim (because they get classified as such, according to a usual Muslim classification) makes it relevant, even if sometimes the law is used for non-religious reasons. The point was to explain how some Muslims classify apostates.

I also provided more examples, like links in which a usual classification of apostates in Islam is explained, which shows clearly that self-identification as an adult is not a requirement for being an apostate. So, even if you leave aside that particular example (which you shouldn't, but you won't realize that), the point remains that your claims about self-identification as adults are unwarranted - and frankly, false. There is plenty of evidence is support of the other classification, very little in support of yours.

But regardless, it's apparent that you will not be persuaded, and I made the points I wanted to make in enough detail for readers, so I'll leave it there.

Before we get into the details of what views and behaviours you feel are held by (a minority of?) Muslims around the world, we first need to get past this idea that any observation made of a Muslim is a feature of the Global Religious that is Islam, rather than, you know, the aftermath of a 25-year civil war.

You continue to attribute to me ideas, intentions, etc., that I do not have, and that you shouldn't believe I have, given the exchange, so there seems to be little room for getting through to you, even though you do have the capacity to do much better, so there is not much I can say.
I invite interested readers to take a look at our exchange, and/or your exchange with Bomb#20.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except Iran isn't exporting its interpretation of Islam to anyone who doesn't already hold to it (e.g. Iraqi Shi'ites). We're not seeing Iranian terrorists -- or for that matter, Iranian soldiers -- imposing Shia Islam on Afghanistan. The Revolutionary Guards are not attacking the Kurds or the Turks, not trying to conquer huge swaths of Iraq, not imposing a remarkably strict version of Sharia on areas they have illegally annexed. They are not even demanding the imposition of Sharia -- let alone Shi'ite interpretations of Sharia -- on the Palestinians, whom they morally and materially support.

Put simply: Iran has no reason to engage in Islamism because Iran is disinterested in how the rest of the world interprets Islam. Iranians see themselves as IRANIANS, not merely as Shi'ites, or for that matter merely as Muslims. They are members of a nation and a culture that has existed continuously for thousands of years, and that, more than anything else, defines their identity as well as it informs their foreign policy.

We see Iranian-backed terrorism attacking Israel.

We see Iranian-backed fighting in Syria, although they are on Assad's side--it's another front in the Shia/Sunni fighting. We used to see Iranian-backed stuff in Iraq (again, Shia/Sunni), although now they are more interested in dealing with ISIS than going after Iraq.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except Iran isn't exporting its interpretation of Islam to anyone who doesn't already hold to it (e.g. Iraqi Shi'ites). We're not seeing Iranian terrorists -- or for that matter, Iranian soldiers -- imposing Shia Islam on Afghanistan. The Revolutionary Guards are not attacking the Kurds or the Turks, not trying to conquer huge swaths of Iraq, not imposing a remarkably strict version of Sharia on areas they have illegally annexed. They are not even demanding the imposition of Sharia -- let alone Shi'ite interpretations of Sharia -- on the Palestinians, whom they morally and materially support.

Put simply: Iran has no reason to engage in Islamism because Iran is disinterested in how the rest of the world interprets Islam. Iranians see themselves as IRANIANS, not merely as Shi'ites, or for that matter merely as Muslims. They are members of a nation and a culture that has existed continuously for thousands of years, and that, more than anything else, defines their identity as well as it informs their foreign policy.

We see Iranian-backed terrorism attacking Israel.

By Sunni groups that have no religious or ideological connection to Iran other than the fact that they happen to be at war with Iran's most powerful rival in the region. Remember, you're trying to make the claim that Iran is "exporting its own brand of Islam" at gunpoint. The Palestinians DO NOT practice Iran's brand of Islam and Iran has made no attempt to make them.

We see Iranian-backed fighting in Syria, although they are on Assad's side

And Assad is not a Shi'ite, nor is he attempting to impose a Shi'ite interpretation of Islam on Syria. Indeed, the whole reason Iran backs Assad is because he is rabidly oppose to the kinds of Islamist movements that have been menacing Iran for the last two decades. In other words: Iran backs Assad as a check AGAINST Islamism.

We used to see Iranian-backed stuff in Iraq

We see Iranian-backed Shi'ite political parties in Iraq. We DO NOT see Iranian-backed Shi'ite religious radicals in Iraq.

they are more interested in dealing with ISIS than going after Iraq.

You mean Iranian-backed political parties are uniting with their Shi'ite rivals in opposition to an Islamist terrorist organization? Imagine that!

Until and unless the definition of "Islamist" is officially amended to "Muslims who do things Loren Pechtel doesn't like" then you have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR THIS CLAIM. Iran is not an Islamist country.

 

[Togo]

Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Is your claim about self-identification irrelevant to the OP?

Yes. I was invited to provide an opinion, so I did so. The entire subject is irrelevent to the OP.

If your claim is irrelevant to the OP, then why do you object to my responses on the basis that they are or might be irrelevant to the OP?

Because you're questioning whether my opinion is factually accurate over and over again as if it mattered. I agree my impression may not be accurate, and I've stated outright that it is not universal. I don't agree that you've provided any evidence one or the other, and it doesn't make any difference to the OP.

That's merely an opinion, based on the Muslims I know, a few of whom are interested in punishing those who follow Islam improperly, but none of whom are interested in people who don't actively follow Islam, regardless of their birth and upbringing. It's not the basis of any position I hold, nor is it a claim I'm advancing.

First, you made that point in the context of the debate with Bomb#20, and in support of the claim that Muslims believed that their religion would be policed, but implying that they didn't want to inflict punishments on non-Muslims.

I simply gave my opinion. In doing so I was pointing out that there are a plentiful supply of Muslims who do not interpret the concepts being cited in a way that was consistent with the conclusion. I don't need to argue with anyone about whether this is commonly true or typical of all Muslims, and have several times stated that making such generalisations is foolish. The mere fact that it is true of some Muslims, shows that beliefs of Muslims do not necessarily follow from the concepts being cited.

Second, if some of the people you know are interested in punishing those who follow Islam improperly, but are not interested in punishment those who do not follow Islam actively, then what does that have to do with whether they self-identified as Muslims when adults? For that matter, it seems the people you knew would not be interested in punishing people who were self-identifying Muslims as adults, but later apostatized and became non-Muslims.

That is correct.

Note however that 'apostasy' is the not the same as 'leave the religion'. It is a rebellion or renouncation against the religion implying critical opposition to the religion thereafter. As such you may be confusing people with your use of terms. Many muslims object very strongly to their religion being criticised or corrupted, but trying to force or coerce people into remaining Muslim is less common.

Third, why would you make that claim without taking into account the evidence of all of the cases in which many Muslims punish former Muslims, or people who were never Muslims but who were born to a Muslim parent and as such get classified as Muslim regardless?

Have you presented any such cases? Your example from the aftermath of the Sudanese civil war I've already commented on. Did I miss others?

Then I must confess bafflement at the point you're trying to make, which seems entirely focused on a claim you feel I've advanced, and nothing to do with the OP.

No, it's based on the claims you made, not just that I feel you made them.

Ok, so in preference to discussing the OP, you're focusing on my impressions of Islam?

If you object to my position, then I'm happy to discuss it. If you disagree with my understanding of the facts, then we can discuss that too, but I'll need some kind of evidence to work with. If you object to my personal observations, then there's not much I can say. If you object to how my posts have been presented, independent of my actual views, then while I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't see there is much productive to discuss.

Well I certainly have no hard evidence on whether my impressions gained from Muslims friends, colleagues co-workers and acquaintances are representative of Islam as a global religion, nor have I tried to claim otherwise. I'm sorry if that wasn't understood. I have advanced alternative explanations for some of the pronouncements you've made. I did this because our understanding of how Islam works is very different. However, my position in this discussion is not based on any such understanding - it's based on the total inability of anyone in this thread to provide evidence for the questions in the OP. The fact that I can, quickly and easily, put an entirely different interpretation on the data cited is an easy way of demonstrating that the data does not support the claims made by those who cited it.

For example, you cited the the example of a woman in Sudan convicted of apostasy. I pointed out that the motives and background around this was almost certainly political. Your reply ignored that entirely, and simply stated that there were 'plenty of examples of apostasy'. No, there aren't. There are plenty of examples that are ostensibly about apostasy, but aren't primarily religious. All you've demonstrated is an ability to mistake one for the other.

There are of course plenty of examples, and the very fact that there is a law punishing apostasy and which applies to people who were never Muslim (because they get classified as such, according to a usual Muslim classification) makes it relevant,

No, it really doesn't. There's a law in the Old Testament that punishes promiscuity with a death sentance, but it doesn't follow from that the Western World is terribly prudish.

What would make it relevent would be examples of people being commonly convicted of apostasy across the Islamic world, so as to demonstrate that this is a common or typical feature of Islam, rather than the culture that has embraced Islam. Otherwise we're just back to arguing that christianity tends to make people build aircraft carriers and cruise the world bombing people.

I also provided more examples, like links in which a usual classification of apostates in Islam is explained,

But those aren't examples. Those are extracts of terms from the Qu'ran that you may or may not be interpreting in the same way that Muslims do. We're discussing whether the religion makes Muslims violent, so we need examples of actual behaviour.

But regardless, it's apparent that you will not be persuaded,

Not by what you've presented, no. But then it's not like I'm the single outlier in a crush of people rushing to renounce their former opinions and join you. Which suggests that the issue is not with some unsual feature of me, just as the lack of a general trend towards violence amongst Muslims argues against their religion having some special feature of making people more violent.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Is your claim about self-identification irrelevant to the OP?

Yes. I was invited to provide an opinion, so I did so. The entire subject is irrelevent to the OP.

Your claim about what happened and what you did is false, as the record shows:

1. In reply to a post by untermensche, Bomb#20 said

This is a thread about violence, not a thread about bombing. Like pretty much everything else, violence comes in a Gaussian curve; bombers are simply the people way out on the upper tail end of the distribution. So whether and to what extent people set off bombs is quite literally a side issue. The central issue is what effect Islam's teachings have on the mean and the standard deviation. It's not the 0.01% who want to blow up women and children that are in need of explanation; it's the 50%+ who support punishing blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, female disobedience, and on and on. So go ahead, explain how that's the Wests's fault.

There was no invitation to give your opinion, but a reply to a post by another poster, and in particular a rebuttal to the claim that it was the fault of the West.


2. In the post following B20's post you replied to him, and claimed:

The central issue is what effect Islam's teachings have on the mean and the standard deviation. It's not the 0.01% who want to blow up women and children that are in need of explanation; it's the 50%+ who support punishing blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, female disobedience, and on and on. So go ahead, explain how that's the Wests's fault.

Well, first we need to look at your 50% plus. According to the research you cited, which unfortunately for you I actually read, Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Now certainly we have seen some cases in the Middle East where religious structures appear to be getting more influence over the country than Muslims themselves feel they should have. To the extent that the West has been systematically corrupting and supporting secular institutions in favour of 'strong men' who are easier for the West to deal with, then yes, out of control Mullahs are largely the West's fault.

It might be useful to compare with what happened in Europe after the Treaty of Versailles, when many of the same powers undermined secular democracy in Germany.

Evidently, your false claim about what the research said was relevant to the question of how violent those people are. It's not that they wouldn't be very violent anyway, even if they went with the self-identification criterion. They would still want to, say, stone Muslim adulterers to death, which would be religiously motivated extreme violence.

But that aside, you objected to Bomb#20's proper claim about Muslim violence by attributing to the Muslims who supported such punishments a self-identification criterion that you should not have believed they had, and should not believe they have.

I properly objected to that claim of yours, and since then you have repeatedly misrepresented my views and points in spite of clarification, attributed to me intentions and feelings that I do not have and that you should not believe that I have, and now also made obviously false claims about what happened earlier in the exchange and what you did earlier. Now, you do not know any of that, but you most certainly can figure it out - the record is clear -, and should do so.

I simply gave my opinion. In doing so I was pointing out that there are a plentiful supply of Muslims who do not interpret the concepts being cited in a way that was consistent with the conclusion. I don't need to argue with anyone about whether this is commonly true or typical of all Muslims, and have several times stated that making such generalisations is foolish. The mere fact that it is true of some Muslims, shows that beliefs of Muslims do not necessarily follow from the concepts being cited.

No, that is simply not what happened, as you can see by just reading the relevant posts and interpreting them rationally.

Note however that 'apostasy' is the not the same as 'leave the religion'. It is a rebellion or renouncation against the religion implying critical opposition to the religion thereafter. As such you may be confusing people with your use of terms. Many muslims object very strongly to their religion being criticised or corrupted, but trying to force or coerce people into remaining Muslim is less common.

Actually, it does not imply critical opposition, unless by "critical opposition" you mean any statement implying that Islam is false or that one believes it's false, like, say, saying that Christianity is true, or that one is an atheist.

But that aside, my point stands:

1. Do any of the Muslims that you know wants to punish people who do not identify as Muslims for apostasy, as long as the people in question once self-identified as Muslims when adults, but do not want to punish people who do not identify as Muslims for apostasy, if those people only self-identified as Muslims when they were not yet adults?

If your answer is "no" - and it is, given your previous replies -, then those Muslims you know do not even provide the slightest anecdotal evidence for the distinction for punishing apostates based on whether they once self-identified as Muslims when adults.

2. Do any of the Muslims that you know wants to punish people who do not identify as Muslims for apostasy, as long as the people in question once self-identified as Muslims when adults?

If the answer is "no" - and it is, given your previous reply -, then surely you do not even have anecdotal support for the self-identification claim based on what your Muslim acquaintances want.

Have you presented any such cases? Your example from the aftermath of the Sudanese civil war I've already commented on. Did I miss others?

There are plenty of such cases. I don't need to provide all of the evidence. You can easily find plenty on line.
But for example, I pointed out that in Islam apostates (murtadd) are classified in fitri murtadd (a person born to at least one Muslim parent who is not a Muslim, though of course they're still classified as Muslim), and milli murtadd (Muslim converts who reject Islam).

I provided sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irtidad
http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00228.html
http://ex-muslim.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Apostasy_Report_Web1.pdf

My second source is even a reply from a Muslim to another Muslim who asks him a question about apostasy.

I quote from the reply:

A fitri murtad is one who was born of Muslim parents (or at least one
parent) and then rejects Islam. If he rejects Islam, then, according to
the fatawa of our maraji (including Ayatullahs al-Khu'i and Khumayni) he
is to be killed.

A woman murtadd (whether of the fitri or milli type) is not to be killed.
She is to be imprisoned.

Obviously, that gives an example of Muslim support for punishing people who were never Muslims (fitri murtadd). And it's not just one person. In this case, there is the authority of a fatwa.

Now, if you want examples of people who were never Muslims but were actually punished for apostasy, you can easily find them by searching. Alternatively, you can check Bomb#20's examples.

Ok, so in preference to discussing the OP, you're focusing on my impressions of Islam?

First, you misrepresent what happened, including what you did, as I have already shown.
Second, that aside, if I see a debate on a thread, I sometimes join the debate if I feel like doing so. Sometimes, the debate is about the claims in the OP; sometimes, it is not.

If you object to my position, then I'm happy to discuss it. If you disagree with my understanding of the facts, then we can discuss that too, but I'll need some kind of evidence to work with. If you object to my personal observations, then there's not much I can say. If you object to how my posts have been presented, independent of my actual views, then while I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't see there is much productive to discuss.

No, I objected to a claim you made that was relevant to the OP (but even if it had not been, that was your claim).

In addition, I also object to your misrepresentation of my words, to your unwarranted and false attribution to me of intentions and feelings that I do not have, and now to your misrepresentation of the discussion lead to my first reply to one of your posts. I know you make those mistakes without realizing it, but you should not.

No, it really doesn't. There's a law in the Old Testament that punishes promiscuity with a death sentance, but it doesn't follow from that the Western World is terribly prudish.

Of course not, but that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is based on the fact that there is an actual law - that is, a law that is in effect today, not centuries or millenia ago - clearly shows willingness to punish non-Muslims for apostasy.

What would make it relevent would be examples of people being commonly convicted of apostasy across the Islamic world, so as to demonstrate that this is a common or typical feature of Islam, rather than the culture that has embraced Islam. Otherwise we're just back to arguing that christianity tends to make people build aircraft carriers and cruise the world bombing people.

No, that's not a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. It's like saying that the law that bans abortion in Argentina is not motivated by Catholicism because convictions are rare (it was motivated by Catholic beliefs, though now Evangelicals and others play some role in keeping it; it surely is religiously-motivated violence, even if there are other causes too).

If there is a law punishing apostasy (in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, and in plenty of countries) with death, or canning, or flogging, or imprisoning, or up to the judge between those, etc., based on Muslim teachings, surely that is evidence of Islam-motivated violence against non-Muslims.
Convictions may not be so frequent, but the threat is there, and by the way convictions do happen sometimes (which keeps other non-Muslims in the closet, due to fear), etc. Moreover, laws of that sort are not common only recently; they were common in the past too. I'm talking by the way of actual laws - again, laws that are in force.

The very fact that some Muslim scholars respected by millions or tens of millions of Muslims also claim and teach other Muslims that some non-Muslims (whom of course they classify as Muslims) ought to be put to death for apostasy (like male fitri murtadd who were never Muslims in the first place), is also evidence of Islam-motivated violence against non-Muslims.

In brief, some hadith say or imply that the punishment for converting to another religion is death, and also:

i. Those hadith are part of the law actually in place in several countries (unlike OT laws).
ii. Are considered binding by millions of Muslims (unlike OT laws and Christians).
iii. Of course do not take self-identification when adults as the criterion.
iv. Polls show that millions of Muslims support the death penalty or other punishments for apostates, and with no suggestion whatsoever that they want to reject the hadith when it comes to the question of how to identify a Muslim
v. The answers of Muslim scholars on the question.

Of course, that leaves aside all of the Islam-motivated violence against other Muslims.

For example, the poll states:

In 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of Muslims
who favor making sharia the law of the land also favor stoning unfaithful spouses.

Even if it were true - which you have no grounds for believing, based on the poll, as Bomb#20 pointed out but you failed to accept - that they only want to stone Muslim adulterers, that's a lot of Islam-motivated violence, that is religiously motivated violence. Or do you think the motivation to stone adulterers to death is not based on their religious beliefs?

But those aren't examples. Those are extracts of terms from the Qu'ran that you may or may not be interpreting in the same way that Muslims do. We're discussing whether the religion makes Muslims violent, so we need examples of actual behaviour.

No, those are examples. A Muslim asks another (respected) Muslim a question about apostasy; the latter replies by explaining the classification, and who gets executed. Further, he cites other - more respected - scholars who issued fatwas on the matter. Of course, those are examples.
The fact that some of the hadith that establish the death penalty or other harsh punishments are part of the actual, present-day law of a number of countries is also evidence, and so on.

Not by what you've presented, no. But then it's not like I'm the single outlier in a crush of people rushing to renounce their former opinions and join you. Which suggests that the issue is not with some unsual feature of me, just as the lack of a general trend towards violence amongst Muslims argues against their religion having some special feature of making people more violent.

No, it does not suggest any of that, in light of both your exchanges with B20 and with me.
If I were trying to persuade some Christians that Christianity is not true, of course I could establish that it's not true beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's almost certain that they will not be persuaded.
You're not a Christian, but in this thread, you're not discussing matters in a rational manner, I'm afraid - at least, not the parts of the exchange that show some of your beliefs on the subject to be mistaken; you may be very rational in pointing out errors in other people's views, when those errors are actually there.

 

[Togo]

It seems I've upset you.

Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Is your claim about self-identification irrelevant to the OP?

Yes. I was invited to provide an opinion, so I did so. The entire subject is irrelevent to the OP.

Your claim about what happened and what you did is false,

If you can't formulate your question in terms of what my position is, rather than complaining about past posts, then why should anyone care? Why is it important who's portrayal of past posts is more accurate? Why are they being discussed at all?

If there's a point here, let's get to it. If you just want to gripe about me personally, do it elsewhere.

2. In the post following B20's post you replied to him, and claimed:

The central issue is what effect Islam's teachings have on the mean and the standard deviation. It's not the 0.01% who want to blow up women and children that are in need of explanation; it's the 50%+ who support punishing blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, female disobedience, and on and on. So go ahead, explain how that's the Wests's fault.

Well, first we need to look at your 50% plus. According to the research you cited, which unfortunately for you I actually read, Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Evidently, your false claim about what the research said

Whoa, whoa whoa... What false claim? The fist sentance is filler. The second sentance is entirely and utterly true in every detail. So is the fourth. The third sentance, starting with So people who are self-identifying..., is an interpretation of what the article said, in the same way that Bomb has been interpreting what the article said. You disagree with that interpretation, fine, but everything I said about the research was true.

...was relevant to the question of how violent those people are. It's not that they wouldn't be very violent anyway, even if they went with the self-identification criterion.

Ok, so the self-identifcation criterion, which is what you seem to be complaining about, is irrelevent to both my point about how the content of the research differed from Bomb's account, and Bomb's account of the alledged violence of Muslims? We can actually drop the entire subject of self-identification point and both positions still stand? So why is it important? Why keep coming back to it?

They would still want to, say, stone Muslim adulterers to death, which would be religiously motivated extreme violence.

Would it? You have millions of Muslims around the world, some of whom stone people to death. Some non-Muslims also stone people to death. That cannot mean that the religion makes it's followers stone people to death. It simply does not follow. You may want to argue that stoning would not happen without the religion, you may want to argue that the stoning is more prevalent because of the religion, but the fact that some Muslims stone people to death does not in itself demonstrate either point.

I appreciate that, being logic, this is a bit of a technical point. But it's critical to the understanding of the subject that you realise that some Muslims doing bad things as described in their holy writings does not in itself imply that the holywritings are responsible for those bad things being done. If you're fond of gathering lists of bad things people occasionally do, like Muslims stoning people or Togos describing things in a way you disagree with, then it may seem dreadfully counter-intuitive that these bad things are utterly and totally irrelevent to demonstrating your point, but that is nonetheless the case. As Bomb said, it's not the 1%, it's the 50%. You need to deal with what most Muslims do, or you don't have a case. At all.

But that aside, you objected to Bomb#20's proper claim about Muslim violence by attributing to the Muslims who supported such punishments a self-identification criterion that you should not have believed they had, and should not believe they have.

Ok, so you don't feel the self-identification criterion is supported by the article, and you reckon I should have avoiding doing what Bomb did and putting my own interpretation on the findings. I'm certainly happy to declare the self-identification as simply my interpretation, and just go with the other two points I made in the same paragraph, that Muslims only support these punishments on other Muslims, and that they show an overwhelming support for religious plurarlism. Bomb's point still gets refuted, and now everyone is happy?

Note however that 'apostasy' is the not the same as 'leave the religion'. It is a rebellion or renouncation against the religion implying critical opposition to the religion thereafter. As such you may be confusing people with your use of terms. Many muslims object very strongly to their religion being criticised or corrupted, but trying to force or coerce people into remaining Muslim is less common.

Actually, it does not imply critical opposition,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

If your answer is "no" - and it is, given your previous replies -, then those Muslims you know do not even provide the slightest anecdotal evidence for the distinction for punishing apostates based on whether they once self-identified as Muslims when adults.

I don't understand where you're going with this. Why is this distinction useful or important to the discussion?

If the answer is "no" - and it is, given your previous reply -, then surely you do not even have anecdotal support for the self-identification claim based on what your Muslim acquaintances want.

Well I know they don't consider to be someone Muslims unless they identify as such. i'm not sure how that relates to this claim though.

Have you presented any such cases? Your example from the aftermath of the Sudanese civil war I've already commented on. Did I miss others?

There are plenty of such cases. I don't need to provide all of the evidence. You can easily find plenty on line.

You could provide some. How about one?

But for example, I pointed out that in Islam apostates (murtadd) are classified in fitri murtadd (a person born to at least one Muslim parent who is not a Muslim, though of course they're still classified as Muslim), and milli murtadd (Muslim converts who reject Islam).

I provided sources:

But not cases. I explained why sources and citations of religious writings are not the same as examples of actual behaviour, and asked you for actual behaviour.

I note that an article from a prominent group of Muslims on rejecting prosecutions for apostasy is technically behaviour, but it's a counter-example to what you're arguing, rather than support for it.

Now, if you want examples of people who were never Muslims but were actually punished for apostasy, you can easily find them by searching.

Since it's your case, you need to do the searching. Remember, as Bomb said, we're not looking for fringe cases here, but for the 50%. We need evidence of ordinary mainstream Muslims punishing people for apostasy. You've consistently claimed that cases are easy to find, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you for one.

Alternatively, you can check Bomb#20's examples.

I did, at the time, which is why I'm still looking. If you feel I missed one, by all means requote it.

If you object to my position, then I'm happy to discuss it. If you disagree with my understanding of the facts, then we can discuss that too, but I'll need some kind of evidence to work with. If you object to my personal observations, then there's not much I can say. If you object to how my posts have been presented, independent of my actual views, then while I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't see there is much productive to discuss.

No, I objected to a claim you made that was relevant to the OP

That's great. Was it relevent to the OP because it was my position, or my understanding of the facts, or are you just interested in how my posts are presented? Or to put it another way, is there anything to actually discuss here?

No, it really doesn't. There's a law in the Old Testament that punishes promiscuity with a death sentance, but it doesn't follow from that the Western World is terribly prudish.

Of course not, but that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is based on the fact that there is an actual law - that is, a law that is in effect today, not centuries or millenia ago - clearly shows willingness to punish non-Muslims for apostasy.

There is also a law, an actual law in effect today, punishing witchcraft by hanging. Again, if we're not talking about actual conduct by actual Muslims, you don't have a case. And as Bomb put it, we're looking for the 50% here.

What would make it relevent would be examples of people being commonly convicted of apostasy across the Islamic world, so as to demonstrate that this is a common or typical feature of Islam, rather than the culture that has embraced Islam. Otherwise we're just back to arguing that christianity tends to make people build aircraft carriers and cruise the world bombing people.

No, that's not a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. It's like saying that the law that bans abortion in Argentina is not motivated by Catholicism because convictions are rare (it was motivated by Catholic beliefs, though now Evangelicals and others play some role in keeping it; it surely is religiously-motivated violence, even if there are other causes too).

The evidence for it being relgiously motivated is not that it occurs in a country that has that religion (although not properly enforced), but because it occurs in nearly every country that has that religion. Peruvian Christians worship Christ as 'Lord of the Earthquakes', but that doesn't mean it's a feature of christianity worldwide.

If there is a law punishing apostasy (in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, and in plenty of countries) with death, or canning, or flogging, or imprisoning, or up to the judge between those, etc., based on Muslim teachings, surely that is evidence of Islam-motivated violence against non-Muslims.
Convictions may not be so frequent, but the threat is there, and by the way convictions do happen sometimes (which keeps other non-Muslims in the closet, due to fear), etc. Moreover, laws of that sort are not common only recently; they were common in the past too. I'm talking by the way of actual laws - again, laws that are in force.

Then give us cases where it was enforced. Surely evidence of widespread Muslim persecution of non-Muslims would be excellent support for the OP overall... What are you waiting for?

The very fact that some Muslim scholars respected by millions or tens of millions of Muslims also claim and teach other Muslims that some non-Muslims (whom of course they classify as Muslims) ought to be put to death for apostasy (like male fitri murtadd who were never Muslims in the first place), is also evidence of Islam-motivated violence against non-Muslims.

No, it isn't. That's rather the point. The evidence for Islam-motivated violence against non-muslims would be violence against non-muslims, that takes place in muslim communities and not in non-muslims communities.

No amount of quoting from texts and scholars helps you here. A section of the Qu'ran demanding that you kill children wouldn't help you one iota, since all that matters is whether anyone actually does it.

In 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of Muslims
who favor making sharia the law of the land also favor stoning unfaithful spouses.

Even if it were true - which you have no grounds for believing, based on the poll, as Bomb#20 pointed out but you failed to accept - that they only want to stone Muslim adulterers, that's a lot of Islam-motivated violence, that is religiously motivated violence. Or do you think the motivation to stone adulterers to death is not based on their religious beliefs?

Yes, I think that the motivation to stone adulterers to death is not based on their religious beliefs. It's a cultural belief local to certain areas. Which is why it appears in so many different religions, and why it isn't carried out by so many Muslims.

But those aren't examples. Those are extracts of terms from the Qu'ran that you may or may not be interpreting in the same way that Muslims do. We're discussing whether the religion makes Muslims violent, so we need examples of actual behaviour.

No, those are examples. A Muslim asks another (respected) Muslim a question about apostasy; the latter replies by explaining the classification, and who gets executed. Further, he cites other - more respected - scholars who issued fatwas on the matter. Of course, those are examples.
The fact that some of the hadith that establish the death penalty or other harsh punishments are part of the actual, present-day law of a number of countries is also evidence, and so on.

No, it isn't. The evidence is that people actually carry them out. If the hadith says kill X, and all the scholars agree it says kill X, and X is not in fact killed, has the writing made anyone more violent? You're arguing that we can say that a religion makes people violent without any violent acts taking place. That's nonsense. There has to be a violent act, or it isn't violence. You've not given any cases where this occurs, and certainly none where it can be said to be common, widespread, or a feature of the practice of the religion as a whole.

Not by what you've presented, no. But then it's not like I'm the single outlier in a crush of people rushing to renounce their former opinions and join you. Which suggests that the issue is not with some unsual feature of me, just as the lack of a general trend towards violence amongst Muslims argues against their religion having some special feature of making people more violent.

If I were trying to persuade some Christians that Christianity is not true, of course I could establish that it's not true beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's almost certain that they will not be persuaded.
You're not a Christian, but in this thread, you're not discussing matters in a rational manner, .

If that were true, my answers would make no sense, and further discussion would not only be pointless, but actually impossible. If you really believe that I'm not being rational, then trying to reply to me is an irrational act. Your call.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Whoa, whoa whoa... What false claim? The fist sentance is filler. The second sentance is entirely and utterly true in every detail. So is the fourth. The third sentance, starting with So people who are self-identifying..., is an interpretation of what the article said, in the same way that Bomb has been interpreting what the article said. You disagree with that interpretation, fine, but everything I said about the research was true.

The false claim was "According to the research you cited, which unfortunately for you I actually read, Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion."

It is false that according to the research that Bomb#20 (or rather dismal) cited, Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherents of their own religion, since:

1. Plenty of Muslims according to the research - a majority in some countries; that means millions - say that they want to apply Sharia Law to all citizens.

2. As Bomb#20 pointed out:

When a Muslim says he thinks Christians shouldn't be subject to Sharia, that might mean he thinks it's okay if a dead Christian's estate is divided equally between his son and daughter instead of two-to-one. It does not necessarily mean he thinks a live Christian should be allowed to draw Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. The Pew poll didn't ask about that.

3. Punishing apostates who are no longer Muslims is always against non-Muslims (obviously), and of course the research does not state or in any way suggest that those Muslims who wish to support punishing apostates only support punishing apostates who happen to identify themselves as Muslims.

4. Moreover, the apostasy question in the poll was about the punishment that should be imposed on a person who leaves Islam to join another religion. So, not only it is false that according to the research in question, the Muslims who support punishing apostasy only support punishing apostasy within adherents of their own religion, by the standard of self-identification. Rather, it is apparent that they support punishing people who left Islam for another religion, and so are not Muslims - even if the supporters of punishment would classify them as Muslims.
In addition to that, a belief that the supporter of punishers only support punishing people who left Islam after self-identifying as Muslims when they were adults is unwarranted given the available evidence, and not suggested anywhere in the research.

Ok, so the self-identifcation criterion, which is what you seem to be complaining about, is irrelevent to both my point about how the content of the research differed from Bomb's account, and Bomb's account of the alledged violence of Muslims? We can actually drop the entire subject of self-identification point and both positions still stand? So why is it important? Why keep coming back to it?

No, it's not irrelevant.

If they went with the self-identification criterion, they would still be very violent. Again, they would still want to, say, stone Muslim adulterers to death, which would be religiously motivated extreme violence.
However, if they do not go with the self-identification criterion, then they are more violent still, since they also want to use violent against many more people.

So, it's relevant to the question of how violent they are - either a lot, or even more so.

Of course, and just to be clear, by "they" I do not mean "Muslims". You are the one who said "Muslims" "support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion.". I'm talking about all of the millions of Muslims who support such violence, based on the numbers you get from the poll.

Would it? You have millions of Muslims around the world, some of whom stone people to death. Some non-Muslims also stone people to death. That cannot mean that the religion makes it's followers stone people to death. It simply does not follow. You may want to argue that stoning would not happen without the religion, you may want to argue that the stoning is more prevalent because of the religion, but the fact that some Muslims stone people to death does not in itself demonstrate either point.

First, your own position is untenable, since you're saying that Muslims only want to punish apostasy committed by other Muslims. But that surely would be religiously motivated violence: they only want to punish apostasy in other Muslims - according to you.
Second, we're not talking about stoning people to death in person. The fact that a Muslim does not do it in person is not relevant in this context, just as the fact that a Catholic does not work in a prison and so is not imprisoning people for abortion in person does not mean she does not want to imprison people for abortion, in the relevant sense.
Third, the fact that some non-Muslims also stone people to death has nothing to do with this. For that matter, you might say that because some people in the Middle East 3000 years ago stoned people to death (and surely, they were not Muslims) then that's evidence that stoning Muslim adulterers to death would not be religiously motivated violence.
Fourth, if many Muslims support stoning people to death for adultery because of what the hadith they believe in says, or implies, according to their religious instruction, obviously that is Islam-motivated violence, regardless of whether other people are motivated by other factors (like, say, other religions), and regardless of whether other people are also Muslims and do not support stoning.

I appreciate that, being logic, this is a bit of a technical point.

I do realize that you actually believe that I'm making logical errors. Nothing I can do about it.

Ok, so you don't feel the self-identification criterion is supported by the article, and you reckon I should have avoiding doing what Bomb did and putting my own interpretation on the findings. I'm certainly happy to declare the self-identification as simply my interpretation, and just go with the other two points I made in the same paragraph, that Muslims only support these punishments on other Muslims, and that they show an overwhelming support for religious plurarlism. Bomb's point still gets refuted, and now everyone is happy?

Your claim remains false, since:

5. As B20 pointed out:

When a Muslim says he thinks Christians shouldn't be subject to Sharia, that might mean he thinks it's okay if a dead Christian's estate is divided equally between his son and daughter instead of two-to-one. It does not necessarily mean he thinks a live Christian should be allowed to draw Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. The Pew poll didn't ask about that.

6. Assuming for the sake of the argument that they only want to punish for adultery or homosexuality the people they (i.e., those who support the punishments) identify as Muslims, that does not support the claim that they only want to punish other Muslims, since clearly plenty of Muslims identify many non-Muslims as Muslims, as the links B20 and I provided show, and as you can find easily on your own, if you dedicate a bit of time to it.

7. (= 3) Punishing apostates who are no longer Muslims is always against non-Muslims (obviously), and of course the research does not state or in any way suggest that those Muslims who wish to support punishing apostates only support punishing apostates who happen to identify themselves as Muslims.

8. (=4) Moreover, the apostasy question in the poll was about the punishment that should be imposed on a person who leaves Islam to join another religion. So, not only it is false that according to the research that Bomb#20 (or rather dismal) cited, the Muslims who support punishing apostasy only support punishing apostasy within adherents of their own religion, by the standard of self-identification. Rather, it is apparent that they support punishing people who left Islam for another religion, and so are not Muslims - even if the supporters of punishment would classify them as Muslims.
In addition to that, a belief that the supporter of punishers only support punishing people who left Islam after self-identifying as Muslims when they were adults is unwarranted given the available evidence, and not suggested anywhere in the research.

9. Just in case, let me point out that 76% of Sharia supporters in South Asia, and 56% in the Middle East in the Middle East and North Africa, plus significant minorities elsewhere support the death penalty for those who live Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

Let us take a look at what you claimed:

Note however that 'apostasy' is the not the same as 'leave the religion'. It is a rebellion or renouncation against the religion implying critical opposition to the religion thereafter. As such you may be confusing people with your use of terms. Many muslims object very strongly to their religion being criticised or corrupted, but trying to force or coerce people into remaining Muslim is less common.

Now, you were talking about criticism of their religion. But the question is only about leaving Islam and joining another religion. In other words, it's a question about what to do with converts from Islam.
As I said in a part of my reply that you fail to quote, apostasy does not imply critical opposition, unless by "critical opposition" you mean any statement implying that Islam is false or that one believes it's false, like, say, saying that Christianity is true, or that one is an atheist. (I'm including the "atheist" part because it may well be those Muslims consider atheism to be another religion, and it's improbable that they no longer support punishment in that case; but my point stands even assuming otherwise).
So, it does not imply critical opposition, as long as you are using the term in manner that is so broad as explained above.

The point remains is that, say, becoming a Christian counts.

I don't understand where you're going with this. Why is this distinction useful or important to the discussion?

Well I know they don't consider to be someone Muslims unless they identify as such. i'm not sure how that relates to this claim though.

I appreciate that, being logic, this is a bit of a technical point, but you should be able to understand it if you read it more carefully. (of course, I know you understand logic just fine; I'm replying in kind, but also pointing out that you're not using your understanding of logic here).

You could provide some. How about one?

I already did, and surely more than one.

But not cases. I explained why sources and citations of religious writings are not the same as examples of actual behaviour, and asked you for actual behaviour.

I already explained why some of the sources and examples in question are cases.


My second source is even a reply from a Muslim to another Muslim who asks him a question about apostasy.

I quote from the reply:

A fitri murtad is one who was born of Muslim parents (or at least one
parent) and then rejects Islam. If he rejects Islam, then, according to
the fatawa of our maraji (including Ayatullahs al-Khu'i and Khumayni) he
is to be killed.

A woman murtadd (whether of the fitri or milli type) is not to be killed.
She is to be imprisoned.

Obviously, that gives an example of Muslim support for punishing people who were never Muslims (fitri murtadd). And it's not just one person. In this case, there is the authority of a fatwa.
What is the actual example of behavior?
Well, of course it's the behavior of the actual Muslim replying that the male fitri murtadd, he is to be killed. It's also the behavior of the actual Muslims who passed the fatwa. It's also the behavior of those who passed laws based on it. And so on.

Now, again, if you want examples of people who were never Muslims but were actually punished for apostasy, you can easily find them by searching. Alternatively, you can check Bomb#20's examples.

I note that an article from a prominent group of Muslims on rejecting prosecutions for apostasy is technically behaviour, but it's a counter-example to what you're arguing, rather than support for it.

Not "technically", but behavior. And I note that an article from a prominent group of Muslims rejecting prosecutions for behaviors that they hold are not apostasy, but also saying or implying that male fitri murtadd are to be killed, is actually an example in support of what I'm saying.

Since it's your case, you need to do the searching. Remember, as Bomb said, we're not looking for fringe cases here, but for the 50%. We need evidence of ordinary mainstream Muslims punishing people for apostasy. You've consistently claimed that cases are easy to find, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you for one.

First, my claim was:

Third, why would you make that claim without taking into account the evidence of all of the cases in which many Muslims punish former Muslims, or people who were never Muslims but who were born to a Muslim parent and as such get classified as Muslim regardless?

Of course, any cases of executions of apostates, or canning or flogging of apostates counts.
We're not talking about the fringe here, but the actions of governments who either do it for religious motivations, or to pander to the religious.
But you make an unreasonable demand by rejecting those examples.

What are you asking for? Cases in which a mob or a single person breaks the law to kill an apostated? You won't count that as "ordinary Muslims". Application of the death penalty or other punishment by a government? Nope, it seems you will not count that, either. What on Earth would you count?

Second, if you're talking about support, of course there is plenty of evidence of that. The poll provides plenty of evidence, since millions of Muslims want to punish people for converting from Islam - and, indeed, what to kill them.
Given the context of how Islam (the hadith, religious scholars) identify apostates, and the lack of any suggestion whatsoever that the "self-identification as an adult" criterion plays a significant role, the most likely scenario is that they do not use that criteria.
Third, the link I posted does include ordinary Muslims, one of which wanted to punish people for some behaviors because he believed they constituted apostasy, but he was corrected by another Muslim, who also supports the exectution of the apostates in question.
So, there you go.
Fourth, Bomb#20 already provided examples. But I suppose you will consider that "not ordinary Muslims"? Are your standards of evidence even possible to be met? What would it take?
Fifth, how about the following case?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/p...-alive-were-attacked-1-200-people-kin-n243386

Yes, the person who instigated the attack apparently was not motivated by religion. But what about the massive lynch mob? Not ordinary Muslims, I suppose?
What about the call for their death from local Mosques? Not ordinary Muslims, I suppose?

But what is it that you demand, then? Could you even describe a hypothetical case that would meet your demands?

That's great. Was it relevent to the OP because it was my position, or my understanding of the facts, or are you just interested in how my posts are presented? Or to put it another way, is there anything to actually discuss here?

I already spent too many hours on this. All you would need to do is read the exchange again, and be rational when doing it.

There is also a law, an actual law in effect today, punishing witchcraft by hanging.

Which law are you talking about?
Regardless, you got it wrong. A law punishing witchcraft by handing does provide evidence of a willingness to punish people for witchcraft, though of course other pieces of evidence may defeat it. For example, it may well be that the law was passed a very long time ago, and even though it is no longer applied, no one with power cares enough to abrogate it. I'm pretty sure that if you're talking about a Western country, I can find evidence like that (because it's obviously not true that there is any threat of government punishment for witchcraft).
Do you have any similar counterevidence in the case of apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, etc., including those adopted very recently?

In any case, actually plenty of people were punished for witchcraft in the past, as a result of Christian motivation. So, I'm not sure what your point is. Today's forms of Christianity do not have that effect, at least in the West. On the other hand, laws banning abortion in nearly all cases in nearly all of Latin America are in fact motivated by Christianity. And they are applied to some extent: even if convictions are rare, they do happen, and the threat also drives women without enough resources to have unsafe abortions. Many of them die.

Again, if we're not talking about actual conduct by actual Muslims, you don't have a case. And as Bomb put it, we're looking for the 50% here.

Are you serious?
Of course, there is plenty of behavior by Muslims. But will you even count it if the law is applied by a government, or will you say it's not ordinary Muslims?
But let's see:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/mohammad-asghar-pakistan-blasphemy-death-row
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-pakistan-blasphemy-sentence-idUSBREA2Q1YF20140327
http://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ced-26-years-jail-religious-blasphemy-wedding

Yes, they're not actually executed by the government, but some are killed during the trials. I guess that that does not count?
Still, even when they are not killed, they're often arrested, taken to court, imprisoned for a months or years, etc., for blasphemy. Whether they are Muslims is beside the point: some are; some aren't, but they get punished anyway (though about half of the people accused are non-Muslims, who represent a very small percentage of the population).
Or are you not counting them because they're allegedly British?
Actually, the British government implemented blasphemy laws in the 19th century, but the people enforcing them today do not have the same intentions as the British rules, and also the government has introduce a number of new rules, especially meant for those who blaspheme against Islam in some way or another, like the 1986 law punishing blasphemy against Muhammad, or the 1982 law punishing desecration of the Quran. By the way, the vast majority of the charges are for desecrating the Quran - not a law passed by British rulers.
And why are these laws kept?
It seems it's because the religious parties support them, and others don't seem to either have enough power to confront them, or care about them. Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12621225

And it's not just Pakistan, of course. Take, for example, Bangladesh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...114db4-ad15-11e2-a8e6-b6e4cc7c49d1_story.html

Or how about Afghanistan?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7204341.stm

But you're not going to be persuaded. Is the problem that those are cases of blasphemy, not apostasy?
If you think that that matters, why do you think so? Or is it that there is some other reason to rule them out?

How about more on the persecution of Baha'is?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2012/mar/30/iran-bahai-leaders-days-imprisonment

You don't find those persuasive?
How about Egypt, where killng those who convert from Islam to another religion is supported by 86% of the population?
Let's see how they're treated, for example:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/11/egypt-embattled-atheists-20131114184645790660.html
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/egyp...phemy-case-assault-free-expression-2012-12-12

They're not being killed, but they're being punished, in several cases, either by the government, or by other violent people. I guess none count?

I suppose it's a small problem, though, given the fact that there are only 866 atheists in Egypt, and that the anti-atheism task force is up and running.
So, the government uses indoctrination and unreason, but also violence in the form of arrests and threats of arrests. Have you seen any such threats for witchcraft?

How about more convictions for apostasy and sorcery?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/saudi-arabia-sorcery-death-sentence-upheld-2010-03-18
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/death-sentences-saudi-sorcery-claims-20091210

Not good enough?
Please note that even in the case of convictions that are later commuted or overturned (many, but not all), people are still jailed for periods that range from months to years.

The evidence for it being relgiously motivated is not that it occurs in a country that has that religion (although not properly enforced), but because it occurs in nearly every country that has that religion. Peruvian Christians worship Christ as 'Lord of the Earthquakes', but that doesn't mean it's a feature of christianity worldwide.

That's not a reasonable demand.
If the HIV virus infects many people worldwide, but there are social contexts in which it usually people infected do not develop AIDS (because treatments are available), that's not a good reason to reject the evidence of all of the cases in which it does cause AIDS.

There may well be social contexts that act as a medicine reducing the violence induced by Islam, but that is no good reason to reject the evidence of violence induced by Islam elsewhere.

Similarly, in the US, Canada, and many still predominantly Christian (Catholic or Protestant) countries in Europe, abortion on demand is allowed at least through part of the pregnancy. That's not a good reason to deny the evidence that Christianity, and mostly Catholicism, motivates bans in Latin America, or that Christianity ( mostly Protestant Christianity) motivated (not entirely, but to a considerable extent) the bans in the past in the US, and motivates current attempts to ban it again, etc.

No, the evidence that it's religiously motivated is based both on factors such as the sources people accept as authoritative, and more importantly observations of their behavior when they engage or provide support for violence - what seems to drive them. And what seems to drive them is, in many, many cases, religion - that includes plenty of the cases under consideration.