Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet

Pakistani Lawyer Wants Mark Zuckerberg Executed 1318

Posted by kdawson
from the just-cut-the-wires dept.
Earthquake Retrofit sends along a piece from The Register reporting on a nightmare scenario of legal jurisdiction on the Internet: a Pakistani lawyer has filed blasphemy charges, carrying the death penalty, against Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives (and the pseudonomous user who initiated the "Draw Muhammad" contest last month). Pakistani police have apparently opened an investigation, according to this Google translation of a BBC Urdu report."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pakistani Lawyer Wants Mark Zuckerberg Executed

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:26PM (#32614134)

    n/t

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:27PM (#32614154)
    If Pakistan were to actually uphold this absurd attempt, it wouldn't hurt Mark Zuckerberg (I'm pretty sure he's not planning on going to Pakistan anytime soon and no civilized country is even going to consider extradition). But it WOULD certainly hurt Pakistan (which already has a pretty bad rep to begin with). It's the equivalent of holding up a big sign to the world that reads "We're a backwards shithole, filled with intolerant Koran-thumping hicks. Don't even think about coming here or doing business here." It would be a valuable lesson on what religious fanaticism can do to your country, I suppose--especially for countries that don't have oil (the only reason any businessman from the civilized world would even be caught dead in Saudi Arabia).
  • by icsx (1107185) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:28PM (#32614172)
    Islam - a religion of peace. Are you serious?
  • by xtracto (837672) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:30PM (#32614208) Journal

    And on a more serious note... what does the people who want the UK Hacker extradited and tried in the USA think of this?... after all the crime was commited in Pakistan (showing drawings of Teh Propeth) no?

  • by BrotherBeal (1100283) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:32PM (#32614242)

    ...a nightmare scenario of legal jurisdiction on the Internet...

    Exaggerate much? This is up there with the summary from a few years ago about how the squid's beak will revolutionize engineering [slashdot.org].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:33PM (#32614246)

    Fuck that. Nuke the entire country from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

  • by bigredradio (631970) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:35PM (#32614280) Homepage Journal
    I don't think the pages for "Draw Muhammad Day" is that big a deal. FarmTown, now THAT is a reason for execution.
  • by clone53421 (1310749) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:35PM (#32614296) Journal

    That’s apparently the difference between us... I don’t believe that insulting someone’s religion should carry the death penalty.

    You’re just as bad as this idiot Pakistani lawyer.

  • by bynary (827120) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:36PM (#32614300) Homepage
    Sure! As long as you define peace as "getting rid of everyone who disagrees with me."
  • by mkiwi (585287) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:36PM (#32614310)

    I thought the US was the only country that thought it could apply its laws to anyone in the world, even its own citizens when they don't reside in the country.

    No, people are assholes pretty much anywhere.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:37PM (#32614328)

    What do you really expect for a religion literally meaning "submission" and where the very founder spread it at the point of a sword. As a society, we all want to have a very PC belief that all religions are created equal, have good intentions, at their core are always good messages and what not and it's only the bad people that pervert them.... but I think that's naive and I'm saying this as an agnostic. Treating unsubstantiated beliefs as sacred and taboo will always be a bad thing because you can't challenge a good or bad interpretation with logic and clearly any and all belief systems set up by man for various agendas will have downsides - some more than others.

  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (kwelris)> on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:38PM (#32614350)

    More likely: "we're a bunch of weenies who are willing to bow to pressure from intolerant koran thumping hicks who say they want to behead us for exercising our rights."

    Pointing out the absurdity of people being offended by stupid things is nothing to be ashamed about. Here, I'll even do it right now: 8===D O: That is Muhammad sucking a massive cock, for those unaware.

    What facebook should be ashamed of is that they bowed to pressure from these lunatics.

  • Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jerrry (43027) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:40PM (#32614376)

    Yet another example showing that the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages that most of the rest of the world emerged from sometime in the 13th century.

  • by Angst Badger (8636) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:40PM (#32614378)

    ...fuck a whole bunch of you superstitious savages.

  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:40PM (#32614386)

    I guess this is a development that no one really foresaw in the early stages of the Internet: instead of creating a global village with a global set of social mores, the Internet is creating a global court room where every jurisdiction can claim tort against anybody who does something over the Internet. Furthermore, it was always implicitly assumed (especially in the US) that the Internet users would adopt, or at least move to American moral standards. Instead, we're discovering that there are plenty of communities out there who are happy to apply their local standards to the world, and that these communities have enough power to at least make life uncomfortable for everyone.

    There is a lesson here. Actually, there are two lessons here. One, Americans aren't the only ones willing to export their values, and they will have a difficult time arguing that others shouldn't. Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.

    I have a sneaking suspicion I know which one is going to win, and it's going to give geeks heartburn all over the world.

  • Jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NixieBunny (859050) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:40PM (#32614388) Homepage

    I don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani police. He doesn't live there, he isn't a citizen of Pakistan, he didn't even commit this infraction himself.

    Of course, I am not a Pakistani lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, Mark.

  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:41PM (#32614396)

    And yet people get so upset and claim that the US "made" the terrorists. I guess they did. Just like Mark Z. did. It does not take much for a western to anger someone. In fact, most people on slashdot would be likely candidates for execution; most of them deny that Allah exists.

    But what we really need to do is talk about this with them and come to an understanding...

    And by the way, Israel is bad. Israel shouldn't have a blockade, Hamas isn't really a big threat. They just want to "execute" Israel...

    Hm.

  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (kwelris)> on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:42PM (#32614402)

    Christianity not being a "religion of peace" (no news here, don't think you are so terribly insightful) doesn't mean that Islam is. Both are free to be ridiculed at the same time.

    On the other hand, this article is definitively about Islam, so that is what's being discussed.

  • by warGod3 (198094) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:42PM (#32614408)
    Hmmm, pretty much sounds like Christianity as well.
  • by bsDaemon (87307) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:44PM (#32614442)

    See, hacking government computers is illegal everywhere, recognized by a crime by two allies who have an extradition treaty with each other. "Blasphemy" isn't a crime in America, or most of the non-Muslim world. Pakistan is basically the world's Arkansas and no one takes them seriously. There is no moral or legal equivalent.

  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:45PM (#32614458)

    What if that religious fanaticism happens to be the religion that controls a major portion of the oil in the world? Islamic countries tend to stick together for no other reason than they happen to be islamic.

    It also is a sign of things to come: more countries will sue citizens of other countries for what they did on the Internet. There is a real risk that this will impede business all over the world.

  • by mdm-adph (1030332) <mdmadph@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:46PM (#32614486) Homepage

    Even if you look at it from their perspective, that Mark Zuckerberg is somehow guilty because he's "enabling" these "offensive" actions on his website, doesn't that make their entire religion guilty because they're enabling the grisly murders of people like Daniel Pearl, or hell, all of 9/11?

  • by mysidia (191772) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:46PM (#32614488)

    Well, Facebook has customers in Pakistan, and that is probably enough, for FB to be considered a fugitive.

    However, it should probably be noted that Zuckerberg is NOT facebook.

    Can you imagine what would happen if CEOs for companies were actually personally criminally responsible for any illegal action anyone at their company committed, or that their company enabled any customer to commit?

    If that were true we might have companies actually following the law....

  • Re:Dark Ages (Score:2, Insightful)

    by King InuYasha (1159129) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:46PM (#32614498) Homepage

    If you think about it, the Islamic world is entering an era that the Christian European world entered in the 13th century. At that time, the Islamic world was at the forefront of scientific discovery. They collaborated with Indians and created a lot of concepts that we use in modern mathematics, and many interesting inventions came about during that time (Candy anyone?).

    Now the Islamic world is swinging far back and trying very hard to resist social advancement that's been happening in most parts of the world for the better part of the 20th century.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:47PM (#32614506)

    Ya I don't understand these blasphemy charges. If someone says something they disagree with, then should just ignore him and move on. I'm not religious so I guess the equivalent for me would be someone claiming that coconuts are fruits. I'll think he's an idiot but that's it, I won't want him executed.

  • by aicrules (819392) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:47PM (#32614518)
    Founder spreading it by the sword is different than the followers/descendants distorting its message to spread it by the sword. So no, not insightful. Similar yes, but when the ACTUAL original roots of a belief system involve violence, that's a lot different.
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:48PM (#32614542)

    Islam - a religion of peace. Are you serious?

    Has your favorite religion ever killed anyone?

    What you'll find with Islam, like any other religion with millions of followers, is that the adherents hold a broad variety of attitudes. Best not to judge all by the behavior of some, just as with skin color, nationality, hairstyle, or anything else.

    Heck, I remember seeing on the news in the '90s where two sects of Buddhist monks were going at it with quarterstaffs, fighting over control of a shrine.

    I met Iranian Moslems in college who were thoroughly westernized.

  • by aicrules (819392) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:51PM (#32614582)
    Except that with Islam it's not just the random followers that promote violent spreading of islam. It's the original founder.
  • by gmuslera (3436) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:51PM (#32614594) Homepage Journal
    Well, i would be more worried about that if it comes from a country where death penalty is still on use, that have deportation treaties with most countries (and if that fails, have no problem in taking other approachs), and that consider big crimes things that in other cultures could be something accepted or normal. And im not talking about Pakistan exactly.
  • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:52PM (#32614602)

    Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which while not exactly "spread" by the point of the sword, it was advanced by the point of the sword.

    Judaism's history was a very violent one, though they were/are not particularly interested in spreading the religion, because it is a racial religion.

  • by Dunega (901960) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:52PM (#32614606)
    and? Is that supposed to make it OK somehow?
  • by sycodon (149926) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:52PM (#32614616)

    So by your reasoning, the next time some thug who happens to be an atheist kills someone, it proves all atheists are potential murders?

  • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:52PM (#32614622)

    and what sign does facebook hold to the world?
    "we're a backwards shithole, filled with idiots who will insult your religion just because they know nothing makes you more mad."

    kill them all.

    Facebook?

    I dunno... Something like "people will willingly share any information you ask for as long as they can play crappy flash games with their friends" I'd imagine.

    Or are you referring to the whole Draw Muhammad thing? Because that wasn't really Facebook-sponsored. It did have a presence on Facebook... But it was started elsewhere and spread just about everywhere.

    And while I'll agree that it's kind of dickish to intentionally piss someone off just for the hell of it... I don't think it is OK to impose your religious beliefs on someone else who does not share them. Nor do I think it is OK to execute somebody for making fun of your religion.

    So, what kind of sign does the whole Draw Muhammad thing hold to the world? Maybe something like "we value freedom of speech and aren't going to let some religious fundamentalists shut us up."

  • Not fair! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:53PM (#32614634) Homepage

    Just earlier this month I WANTED to strangle Zuckerberg. How is it possible for these assholes to suck the fun out of everything?

  • by Tarlus (1000874) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:55PM (#32614672)

    Treating unsubstantiated beliefs as sacred and taboo will always be a bad thing because you can't challenge a good or bad interpretation with logic and clearly any and all belief systems set up by man for various agendas will have downsides - some more than others.

    Not to mention, any time that a death penalty is suggested for anything less than homicide, there's something terribly wrong with the picture.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:56PM (#32614682)

    In most western countries extradition treaties are only in force when there is sufficient similarity in the law and the potential punishment. So Mark is safe in the U.S., but in other countries like Egypt or Turkey he might be in some danger.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:56PM (#32614688)

    Hmmm, pretty much sounds like Christianity as well.

    Of course it does. In it's early days, mainstream Christian Church killed 10s of thousands of Gnostic Christians who were well known for their extreme religious tolerance but got the ire of the church for their unorthodox views like that the God of the old Testament was evil and writing the Gospel of Judas. Not too mention everything since then. It sounds the same because it's inherently the same type of social structure with the same basic aims.

    Of course, Christianity has splintered since then just like Islam has. Splintering doesn't mean automatically being more progressive -- the Puritans and countless other Christian sects were even more strict and worse than the Catholic Church in many ways and as oppressive against women and other things as bad as the most radical Islamic groups.

    In fact, the basic attitudes between the groups are the same, which is why embracing religion will never work out. The only two ways to overcome that is to teach a different interpration of the religion or to forgo all pretense and drop it completely in order to change majority's attitudes about religion -- and that usually means converting them young and waiting for the next generation to come into power. (It's said that controversial scientific theories were often the same way, there were adherents that you would never convert despite all the evidence in the world, you just wait for them to die off).

  • Re:Islam question (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:57PM (#32614706)

    As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

    Tell that to teh gehys.

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:57PM (#32614712)

    I mean, are Muslims really such pussies they can't take a fucking joke about their Prophet?

    A large number of Americans think people should go to prison for burning a frikkin' flag.

    There are intolerant assholes everywhere.

  • by clone53421 (1310749) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:59PM (#32614738) Journal

    That is referring to his followers being persecuted and rejected by their own family members.

    Which, I might add, is an exact description of what happens when a Muslim converts to Christianity. If the family doesn’t outright execute him or her, they at the very least are completely disowned.

  • by poptones (653660) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:59PM (#32614742) Journal

    What are you talking about? The inquisition was still going on when this country was formed a little over 200 years ago...

    Fuck Mohammed and the camel he rode in on!

  • by subsoniq (652203) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:59PM (#32614746)
    Yeah, because one lawyer officially represents the views of all 1 billion Muslims. Just like Rousas John Rushdoony officially represents the views of all Christians, Including the view that your children should be taken from you and stoned to death if they disobey you.

    If you think kooks like this in far away Pakistan are dangerous take a look in your own backyard, the Christian Reconstructionists want to do away with Democracy and turn the American government into a Christian version of the Taliban. There are homicidal crazy people in just about any social group.
  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (kwelris)> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:00PM (#32614748)

    Nowhere did I say that was the only thing. They should also be ashamed of luring people unsuspecting people into giving up any idea of privacy they may have had, among other things.

    That's a completely different story however, and they absolutely should not be ashamed of offending a bunch of koran thumping hicks.

  • Re:Islam question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MoonBuggy (611105) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:01PM (#32614768) Journal

    But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

    There are plenty of concrete examples, the laws on sex toys in some of the predominantly Christian US states being the first that spring to mind, of Christian sensibilities being forced on the population at large. Same goes for the occasional Christian nutjob who kills an abortion clinic worker. In a slightly more broad context, evangelism is directly intended to change the behaviour of non-Christians, although I suppose that you could argue that by making them become Christians they are no longer part of their original group.

    Both religions are following the same template, but the reaction in Islamic countries appears more extreme. It seems that the difference in the reaction owes more to how developed the country is than to the predominant religion, though. It just happens to be the case that many less-developed middle eastern countries are predominantly Muslim while much of the west is Christian. Look at the brutality carried out in the name of Christianity in some African nations for further evidence of this.

  • Re: Islam question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:01PM (#32614782)

    Could someone explain why some Muslims believe that their rules need to apply to non-Muslims?

    As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

    And yet it's trivially easy to find Christians right here in the enlightened USofA who do exactly that.

  • Re:grow some skin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gtall (79522) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:01PM (#32614786)

    Muslims consider the Christian and Jewish G-d to be Allah and Jesus to be a prophet. They are unlikely to make fun of them. Islam's crime is rather the denigration of all non-Muslims into non-humans.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:01PM (#32614790)

    >Well, at least they are bothering to pursue
    >the execution through legal channels this time.

    Good point. Some countries would just launch drones.

  • Re:Dark Ages (Score:4, Insightful)

    by divisionbyzero (300681) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:03PM (#32614810)

    Yet another example showing that the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages that most of the rest of the world emerged from sometime in the 13th century.

    and to which Christian fundamentalists want to drag us back.

  • by SirGarlon (845873) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:04PM (#32614836)

    What do you really expect for a religion literally meaning "submission" and where the very founder spread it at the point of a sword

    What I really expect is for people to be able to tell the difference between an entire religion, and one asshat who claims to follow that religion. You can claim that the behavior of the asshat characterizes the entire religion, but that doesn't make it so.

  • by zero.kalvin (1231372) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:04PM (#32614838)
    I know I may have fallen for a troll trap here, but I am not letting this one go: Hitler atheism is in doubt. The evidence point more toward him being a catholic. Beside wasn't the soldiers who committed these crimes?, are you telling me that Germany's army during ww2 was an atheist army ??None of these soldiers was a catholic one ? Stalin was dogmatic in his views about social composition, he was so dogmatic about these things, it was as religion. Same goes for Pol Pot. It was religion that started the Crusades, it was religion who started the inquisition, it was religion who brought down the Towers. What about slavery in US ? who were the south quoting on the right for slaves? Get you fact right! "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg
  • by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:05PM (#32614842) Homepage
    Actually, I'd be more likely to agree that all religions are, at the core, about power and influence. Frequently they're tools whereby a tiny elite try to influence and control a large flock of sheep.
  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (kwelris)> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:05PM (#32614850)

    you are NOTHING.

    Says the man e-raging on slashdot.

    Regardless of what you say (or I for that matter), Pakistan is still a backwards shithole, this lawyer is still a certified idiot, Muhammed was still a pedophile, and Islam is still not a religion of peace. Deal with it.

  • by rednip (186217) <rednip@nosPam.gmail.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:07PM (#32614882) Journal
    Art only becomes idolatry when one feels that it has some special representation. Pledging to kill the creator of an image is in fact proof of worshiping it.
  • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:07PM (#32614884) Homepage Journal
    Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.

    Wrong. When Pakistan starts behaving like lunatics, the rest of the Internet will just bypass them. They might be able to exert some control within their borders, but that will at worst, cause the rest of the Internet to stop at the edge of their borders/routers. They are damaged, we will ignore them and route around them.
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:08PM (#32614906)

    As a society, we all want to have a very PC belief that all religions are created equal, have good intentions, at their core are always good messages and what not and it's only the bad people that pervert them.... but I think that's naive and I'm saying this as an agnostic.

    I don't think that's right. I think about the only people who think all religions are equal are:

    • Athiests - who think all religions are crap, and just hope people won't be jerks about their religions.
    • Politicians - who just want everyone to get along.
    • Unitarians and maybe Hindus (have I got that right?) - who basically think all religions are partially accurate and pointing towards the same actual truth.

    As a fellow agnostic, what I want is just for people to give me enough space to figure this stuff out, without threatening to kill me if I don't buy into their religion.

  • by insertwackynamehere (891357) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:09PM (#32614928) Journal

    No, but it means if there is a growing trend of atheists liking people in the name of atheism, it would not go unnoticed as a new rise in religious fanaticism.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:12PM (#32614984) Journal
    The Reformation gets very little credit for the relative moderation(or at least contemporary impotence) of Christianity, outside of some real shitholes. Calvin's Geneva was a Protestant theocracy, and there were numerous examples at least as unpleasant.

    Also, while Islam didn't have a "reformation", it also has the "two-substantially-dissimilar-and-mutually-displeased-with-one-another-sects-operating-under-one-heading" thing going, with the Sunni and Shia branches(plus some smaller oddball variants), and that hasn't exactly exposed its warm and fuzzy side.

    Most of the credit for the West not being a ghastly theocratic hellhole, torn by endless wars between the terrorized papistical minions of Rome and the terrorized heretical minions of various protestant factions, with the occasional witch burning or crusade to bring people together, is due to the Enlightenment.

    "Mankind will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest"(and the last advertising shill is buried alive alongside them)...
  • by durrr (1316311) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:13PM (#32615008)
    So just because some of our remote ancestors behaved like giant douchebags it's okay to let people repeat it, especially if it's in the name of religion.
    What happened to learning from history to avoid repeating its mistake? Or did i miss some clause detailing exceptions to this?
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:19PM (#32615112)

    Except that with Islam it's not just the random followers that promote violent spreading of islam. It's the original founder.

    Not sure what point that's supposed to make. Large swaths of Europe were converted to Christianity at sword point.

    Oh, and there's that old "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Lots of religions send mixed messages.

  • by the_womble (580291) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:28PM (#32615266) Homepage Journal

    Not really. The US made terrorists by:

    1) Giving money and training to Osama bin Laden and others of that type.
    2) Supporting the extremist government of Saudi Arabia, which keeps that country fundamentalist and backward, and pouring money into fundamentalism elsewhere.

    I few months ago I heard Fatima Bhutto talking about how (moderate) Sufism was being displaced by (fundamentalist) Wahabism because of the financial backing the Wahabis have.

  • by chooks (71012) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:31PM (#32615302)

    Jesus certainly wouldn't be allowed in "Church", they'd probably stone him if he went up before them preaching some of the things the Bible says he preached.

    Like what?

    "Love one another as I have loved you" :(

  • Re:Dark Ages (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:31PM (#32615308)

    It's funny how most comments in response to genuine criticism are "bbbbbut the Christians!!!!" instead of responding to the actual issue.

  • by VickiM (920888) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:31PM (#32615312)
    Was there a difference? Didn't most kings of the time claim to rule by divine right, given to them by God?
  • by c++0xFF (1758032) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:36PM (#32615380)

    Serious question:

    Could the same be said for current conflicts? Is people's belief in Islam just being used as an excuse to continue a political/economic conflict?

  • by hellfire (86129) <deviladvNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:39PM (#32615454) Homepage

    So what is it about some Muslim theologies that leads them to try to, for example, feel justified and/or compelled to try to kill Dutch cartoonists and Facebook executives?

    It's the same thing that compels born again christians to travel to Utah and tell them how wrong they are for their beliefs. It's the same thing that compels radical christian groups to lobby the United States Congress to pass an amendment declaring marriage being between one man and one woman. It's the same thing that compels extremists to gun down Abortion doctors and harass those who work at Abortion clinics.

    This is not something that Muslims have a monopoly on.

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:41PM (#32615490)

    In it's early days, mainstream Christian Church killed 10s of thousands of Gnostic Christians

    I'm not aware that non-Gnostic Christians acted violently against Gnostic Christians. They basically sidelined them by establishing the canon (New Testament) as the source of spiritual authority, over and against the Gnostic emphasis on personal experience.

    In medieval times some European Christian rulers did convert their subjects or neighbors at swordpoint, and the Crusades were religiously induced violence, and later the heretical sects such as Albigenses and Bogomils were exterminated. And there was that wonderful Thirty Years War thing.

    Of course, you can rarely distangle religion and politics in these things. People have an uncanny knack for concluding that God wants just what they want, and wants them to be the instrument of His will. I suspect religion is often more of an excuse than the actual cause.

  • by Grave (8234) <.awalbert88. .at. .hotmail.com.> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:42PM (#32615514)

    The right to freely speak your mind is secured by the US Bill of Rights. With freedom comes responsibility. That responsibility includes recognizing that while you may not like what someone says, it's never justification for violent retaliation against them for it. And if one of those folks who participated were to be killed in a suicide bombing or other retaliatory act? The world would collectively condemn radical Islam, just as it has every other time. Standing up to extremists of any religion or politic is not just a right--it's a moral duty. The way in which it is done, however, needs to be tempered with the intent to actually make a change.

    Of course, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Pakistan; it'd be stupid to expect it to. So while the legal system in Pakistan may allow for execution for those who would draw a picture of Mohammad, these acts did not occur on Pakistani soil, and thus are not subject to Pakistani laws and jurisdictions. If a resident of Pakistan chose to do this, they would be foolish if they didn't expect to be prosecuted for it.

  • by Lundse (1036754) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:45PM (#32615570)

    I'm curious, which 21st century Christian figures are calling for and filing motions for government-sponsored murder?

    Wrong question.
    The interesting question is what countries enable you to file a religion-based motion for government-sponsored murder.

    You have nutters all over the place, of every colour and (proclaimed) stripe/culture/religion - the problems is having those nutters in powers. Screw the reformation - the seperation of church and state, constitutions and bills of right are what makes a difference!

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:47PM (#32615598)

    Its meaningless to say you are a Christian or a member of a particular church unless you share its essential beliefs.

    There was a man traveling through the land, casting out demons. When the apostles saw it, they told him to stop because he was not one of them. When they told Jesus what they'd done, Jesus told them that they shouldn't have made him stop because whoever is not against us is with us. What then, do you suppose he would say about your claim that "Its meaningless to say you are a Christian or a member of a particular church unless you share its essential beliefs." I'll tell, you, he wouldn't have cared about your precious "essential beliefs".

    You mean the Bible that was compiled by the ..um.. church?

    Yes. Have you read it? It says that.

    Like what?

    That you should give away all your money. That you should accept and love all people. That you should hate your father and your mother. That you should not abide in laws and rules, but rather focus on love. That you shouldn't lord over each other. Pretty much the whole of the gospel message has been thoroughly rejected and rationalized away by the "church".

  • Re: Sure, why not? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:48PM (#32615632)

    It's worse than that, too. Not only do they tear down religions, the make blatantly racist and sexist episodes as well. South Park is still easily my favorite show on television, but it's easily one of the most offensive as well. The show doesn't pull punches, and it equally offends any culture, religion, race, or creed. Truly, the offending episodes featuring the prophet Mohawk weren't even all that offensive, not compared to some of the other things they've done anyway.

  • by eln (21727) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:49PM (#32615638) Homepage
    You're about 15 years too late to be wishing for fewer newbs and lamers on "your" Internet. That ship has sailed, my friend.
  • by kanweg (771128) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:53PM (#32615700)

    "It's far easier to learn programming, and read physics textbooks, and read Dawkins/Hitchens, and other men bloviating about the evils of religion, when they don't even have any real expertise in theology to begin with (Dawkins is a BIOLOGIST)."

    OK, it is a deal if the religious people tear the "how mankind got there" chapter out of their story book. After all, they are not biologists.

    Would demanding that the theological experts stop talking about religion until they have a shred of evidence for the existence of (their!) deity be taking it too far? If they're the experts... . I know Dawkins does provide evidence every time he discusses evolution.

    Bert
    Who somehow still thinks that Dawkins knows more about religion than a creationist about biology.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:54PM (#32615720)

    I agree, but what that means is subject to interpretation.

    If you have a "christian" who says he has accepted Jesus as his savior (and perhaps understands that intellectually), but runs a large corporation that makes money by exploiting the poor, is Jesus his Lord?

    Likewise, if you have a "humanist" who doesn't believe in the power of God (intellectually) but knows Jesus' teachings and gives away his wealth to the poor and takes in orphans to care for them, is Jesus his Lord?

    Your belief is only worth the part of it that carries through into your actions.

  • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:59PM (#32615812) Homepage

    The "extremist" government of Saudi Arabia gets most of its money from oil. The US is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only consumer of said oil.

    There were crazy Islamists (sorry for the redundancy) in Pakistan, etc. a long before the US was even on the scene. Look up India's history with said Mohammedans and their invasions, and what they did about it: hint, they (what we now know as ghurkas) fought like sons-of-bitches. The result of their failure is Pakistan.

  • by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:04PM (#32615904)

    Oh like Islam is any better.

    Child brides, pederasty, repression of women, homosexuality as a crime with the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen.

    I'd bet that more young males are molested in countries like Morocco a year due to the repressed sexuality Islam imposes than have been molested by all the Catholic priests in the last thirty years.

    The son of one of Hamas's founders admits that the social restrictions on dating and sex in Islam and the Middle Eastern tribal society is one of the leading causes of militarism in Islam.

  • by clone53421 (1310749) on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:07PM (#32615964) Journal

    Being disowned in a Muslim culture is a bit more serious than being disowned in the US. In the Muslim culture, your identity – the fact that you are a person, and have civil rights – is based on your Muslim heritage. If your parents retract it, you’re George Bailey. You weren’t born. You don’t exist.

  • by Spewns (1599743) on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:12PM (#32616042)

    Treating unsubstantiated beliefs as sacred and taboo will always be a bad thing because you can't challenge a good or bad interpretation with logic and clearly any and all belief systems set up by man for various agendas will have downsides - some more than others.

    Not to mention, any time that a death penalty is suggested for anything less than homicide, there's something terribly wrong with the picture.

    Anytime the death penalty is suggested at all, there's something terribly wrong with the picture. Nobody can logically explain why it's okay to kill someone when it isn't okay to kill someone.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:15PM (#32616126)

    Strictly speaking, Jesus never command you to do any of those things (nor to believe anything). He did command a couple things (love God, love one and other, make disciples of all nations) and he was pretty clear that doing those things was of paramount importance. He never (as far as I'm noticed in all my readings) placed any emphasis in belief, though some people misread faith as belief.

    Here's my beef with belief. People will say they believe something, and intellectually that may be true, but if they don't practice it they don't believe it in their heart. That is worthless

  • Sorry man (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:17PM (#32616146)

    But it is not just one guy. I don't care what people want to say Islam is supposed to be, you have to take what it in. In particular, look at the countries that are Islamic countries. They are almost to a one fundamentalist dictatorships of one form or another. You have Iran that has sham elections but is run by a "Supreme Leader" that is a cleric and an "Assembly of Experts" also clerics. You have Saudi Arabia, a long standing monarchy where they don't use lawyers but clerics in court and so on. The actual implementation of Islam is stuck back in the crusades and no amount of explaining away can change that. I don't care if that's not what it is "supposed" to be, that's what it is. I'm not going to say that Christian behavior in the actual crusades was ok because it was "Actually Christian". Sorry, it was what the vast majority of the follower of that faith did at the time. Doesn't matter if the book said they shouldn't, they did and justified it with their faith.

    This is the same kind of crap from the people who cry that every single communist state "Isn't a real communism," and therefore communism is still a fine idea. Well strictly speaking that may be the case but practically speaking when communism is implemented, you get the USSR or Vietnam or Cuba and so on.

    It's all the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Oh those guys aren't TRUE Muslims. Yes, they are. They identify as Muslim, they follow the basics, they are Muslim. They may not be what you think a Muslim should be, but they still are.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:23PM (#32616276)

    Right, but what I'm saying is that the business man has not made the choice (even though he claims he believes) and the humanist has made the choice (even though he claims he does not believe). The choice is following Jesus, not "believing" in the intellectual sense. I'm not saying that people don't screw up, but the Lord knows your heart. People who do not believe enough to act likely don't believe at all.

  • by Cyberax (705495) on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:32PM (#32616446)

    Easy solution: store entrails of the last king/priest (whichever comes first) in liquid nitrogen and thaw them before use.

  • Re:Islam question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:36PM (#32616498)

    It was probably a mistake for me to claim Christian theology as a point of contrast.

    No, you were correct. Olddave is confusing theology with action. Non-Christians are "the world", and while teaching and proselytizing are things Christians are enjoined to do for "the world", laying a smack-down for sins isn't part of the religion. Of course, the legal system, with business permits etc. is another issue entirely. I'm sure plenty of non-Christians oppose things that might affect their communities too.

  • Firm but fair (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) on Friday June 18, 2010 @02:38PM (#32616546)
    This is a firm but fair response to everything that is Facebook. I don't think anyone could have a problem with this.

    Proceed! :D
  • by Beezlebub33 (1220368) on Friday June 18, 2010 @03:01PM (#32616994)
    In theory, I'd agree with you: from a moral point of view, the person who does these things deserves to lose their life.

    From a practical point of view, it's a terrible idea. The justice system is not able to correctly mete out these punishments. People who commit these crimes go free. People who are innocent are convicted of them. Also, the threat of a death penalty causes mismatch in threatened penalties compared with the evidence against them, so they plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than lose their life for a crime they did not commit. The police lie under oath and fake evidence, with the truth coming out years or decades later. Witnesses are horribly unreliable, and they can be pressured to perjure themselves.

    Add up the expenses and hoops involved in death penalty cases and it's a cheaper proposition to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives.

    So, yes, I agree with you that they _ought_ to die, but don't think that we should be doing it.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Friday June 18, 2010 @03:04PM (#32617042) Journal

    If you kill someone...you have no place in a civilized society.

    So, executioners and military have no place in civilized society. I can agree with that.

  • by Darby (84953) on Friday June 18, 2010 @03:05PM (#32617056)

    The issue is that that a huge segment of Christianity formally went in a different direction.

    That's true, but there's really nothing good that can be said about that direction either. Protestants are just as vile, depraved and deluded murdering monsters as the Catholics.
    I mean we have Martin Luther to thank for architecting the holocaust, you know. That love of atrocity id buried at the core of Christianity by definition and always will be.

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Friday June 18, 2010 @03:07PM (#32617082) Homepage

    Homosexuality is a religion now? And where do you get "prosecuted" for speaking out against homosexuality? I call that bullshit.

    Oh, and by the way, people don't mock Christianity because of the bible, usually - people don't care if you don't bother them. They do it as a reaction to the Church's action through the centuries and to this day.

    "You will notice that in all disputes between Christians since the birth of the Church, Rome has always favored the doctrine which most completely subjugated the human mind and annihilated reason"

    Voltaire

  • by tnk1 (899206) on Friday June 18, 2010 @03:33PM (#32617520)

    So just because some of our remote ancestors behaved like giant douchebags it's okay to let people repeat it, especially if it's in the name of religion.

    What happened to learning from history to avoid repeating its mistake? Or did i miss some clause detailing exceptions to this?

    That is precisely why it is okay. Consider science: repeatable results makes for good theories. These so-called "mistakes" have resulted in repeated success of the victors. It's probably more important to understand who benefits rather than looking at the methods.

    There are a lot of groups out there who have done just fine with war, conquest and oppression as their means. Although certainly the dead and oppressed people out there didn't like it, we need to understand that this stuff happens because it makes your state/sect/corporation more successful. If history is really a teacher, we may realize that wars, oppression and things like that are only mistakes if you don't like war and oppression. If your major concerns are more power, spreading your ideology/religion, getting rich and having a higher standard of living for yourself, then it would be a "mistake" to make peace and to cease being militarily powerful and allowing more people to have a say in things.

    For you to have any hope of ending these negative aspect for good, you need to change cultures and thought processes to put emphasis on different things. And that isn't going to happen by attacking the symptoms, as nice as it sounds to attack military spending, oil companies and intolerant religions. If you want to stop those abuses for good, you need the people to start thinking in a different way about their existence and goals as a species.

  • by SlappyBastard (961143) on Friday June 18, 2010 @03:34PM (#32617536) Homepage
    I think Rule 34 may be the reason they prefer Muhammad be blacked out.
  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Friday June 18, 2010 @03:43PM (#32617662) Journal
    It think the problem with saudi arabia is that the money is coming from top to the bottom. This allows for a very dangerous situation where wealthy patrons can finance/coerce those with less money to do their will. Without an independent source of supporting themselves, the young turn to the ones who say they are from God and offering them and their families money and protection. It was only really when the masses were able to provide for themselves that they were able to make more responsible decisions for themselves and their families.
  • by tnk1 (899206) on Friday June 18, 2010 @04:03PM (#32618026)

    Screw the reformation - the separation of church and state, constitutions and bills of right are what makes a difference!

    And every one of those are entirely useless unless everyone actually wants to believe in them and work to live inside those rules. Have you seen the constitutions of various totalitarian states like the old Soviet Union? Some of them make the US Constitution look positively lackluster in its protections. They had rights to health care, work, freedom of speech and everything.

    Of course, it doesn't matter because in those countries, their constitutions are a sham or fatally flawed by insertion of certain provisions. More importantly, they were shams because everyone knew who was really in charge and those pieces of paper were meaningless.

    Constitution alone? Worthless.

    Bill of Rights alone? A bad joke.

    Separation of Church and State? What is the point when your leader is the focal point of a cult of personality? Same shit, different century.

    The only thing that matters is the attitude of the people. If you think that the US Constitution had any hope of working without the support of the most powerful segments of the people behind it, you missed the entire Civil War in your history class.

  • by Simetrical (1047518) <Simetrical+sd@gmail.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @04:06PM (#32618080) Homepage

    Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which while not exactly "spread" by the point of the sword, it was advanced by the point of the sword.

    Judaism's history was a very violent one, though they were/are not particularly interested in spreading the religion, because it is a racial religion.

    First of all, the Israelites were not particularly violent by ancient standards. Remember what Rome did to Carthage, say, or what the Assyrians did to everyone they conquered. Conquering as many cities as possible and enslaving everyone was pretty standard. (This point applies equally to Islam, of course.)

    Second of all, don't conflate ancient Israel with Judaism. For much of Israel's history, most of its inhabitants were idolaters, as recorded both by archeological evidence and the Bible. Today's Jews are treated as the exclusive descendants of the Israelites only because all the other Israelites assimilated and intermarried, so we no longer know who their descendants are. By the time Israelites were all Jews as we'd recognize them today, they were already in exile and in no position to commit much violence against anyone.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @04:18PM (#32618260)
    I guess you've never studied Buddhism. I'm no expert, but I've gathered that Buddhism teaches a great respect for life and to exist in harmony with the world. It also is supportive of the advancement of science, even if it contradicts the Buddhist belief set.
  • by Tom (822) on Friday June 18, 2010 @05:37PM (#32619486) Homepage Journal

    Christianity is not about forcing a world view, religion, beliefs, or anything on anyone else. It's about spreading the good news of the Gospel to everyone so they have the choice to be saved or not.

    The teachings of Jesus may have been about that. But you only need to read as far as the Apocalypse to realize that the spirit of his teachings was being gang-raped before his body was cold (or arrived in heaven, if you prefer to believe that).

    Christianity is the second most aggressively expanding major religion of all times, exceeded only by Islam. The people of Africa and South America didn't exactly hear about this interesting new religion on the radio and decided to investigate.

    I know, you'll now offer the usual excuse that all that are just perversions of the real christianity. To which I will offer my usual reply: If we strip away all the allegedly perverted stuff, there isn't a whole lot remaining. Hundreds of years of history have never happened. Millions of people were killed. All "just perversions"? Yeah, right. If something causes that much evil and suffering, anyone who defends it is insane and refuses to see what is in plain view.

  • by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 18, 2010 @07:02PM (#32620418)
    You are confusing "Islam" with "hardline Islam forged from unreasonable external pressures fucking with it for over a century, causing the people to latch on to anything they can to try to regain some sense of independence and power". Don't think for a second that Islam has had the same luxuries as Christianity or even Judaism. Sure, both other religions have had tough times, and when they did, things got ugly. Also, you might want to look up what Wahhabism is, and how it differs from moderate Islam. Your ignorance is showing.
  • by SakuraDreams (1427009) on Friday June 18, 2010 @07:05PM (#32620442)

    Anything can be justified. The ultimate conclusion to the logic you employ (get rid of religion in case it is used again after a 1000 years to justify war even though it teaches against violence) is to get rid of everything which can usefully be used to justify anything negative. Newspapers can be used to justify war or sway public opinion with pseudo-intellectual cr-p or with pseudo-science and so they too should be removed. Oh, you say papers are free - well in a Capitalist society they're not - the owner has last say - so get rid of Capitalism too. Get rid of everything. :-) How absurd is that?

    The Crusades had many motivations. We've learned to avoid them now. Christianity is no longer uses as an excuse to start wars or defend against them. Christianity itself has realised the error of its ways from within itself. The Scripture is right there - "Thou Shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek", "shake the sandals off your feet and leave" in places where they reject you and not kill them instead - and so on. These are pretty nice ideals. If we keep them we have more choice at the end - we still have freedom to follow the good and reject what we don't like - Mr Atheist can still agree with "thou shalt not kill" but reject all that supernatural stuff. Bigger choice - better value and if it helps some people get on with their lives - all the better. :-)

  • by skywire (469351) * on Friday June 18, 2010 @07:07PM (#32620456)

    What??? How was this modded informative?

    You must be new around here. Anti-Christian posts are always modded up Informative or Insightful. The more outlandishly silly, the more so. They are the slashdot equivalent of trash-talk on the basketball court. And don't imagine that most modders take the moderation rules seriously. Modding is an expression of solidarity with the trash-talkers.

  • by Creedo (548980) on Friday June 18, 2010 @07:15PM (#32620526) Journal
    The books as a whole are mythology. Even the Greek myths incorporated bits of historical elements into the narratives. The fact that there may be kernels of historical truth don't make the whole anything other than myth. A bad, morally disturbing myth.
  • Can we PLEASE just stop the liberal "If a few are nice they must ALL be nice" bullshit, please? If 80% are fucking nuts I really don't give a shit if 20% are nice folks, because guess what? The nice folks TOLERATE the nuts! Did you see the huge mobs dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11? How many calls for "tolerance" and "moderation" have you seen from the big middle eastern clerics? Try little to none.

    Whether you like it or not, it WILL be Us VS Them, because they refuse to acknowledge the right of non believers to exist. They do NOT allow freedom of religion, speech, or frankly any other right than the right to bow down and obey. PERIOD.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @01:47AM (#32622768) Journal

    While you can point all you want to them having beliefs in addition to the bible, their traditions are just as old, if not older than the bible itself. So, where is your justification to dismiss it?

    It's an issue of dogma. Protestants beliefe in sola scriptura, so if something cannot be shown to derive from the Scripture, then it's not sacred. Catholics (and Orthodox), on the other hand, believe in the "sacred tradition", which goes alongside the scripture - with scripture prevailing if there is a conflict, but tradition still valid and applicable otherwise.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @01:53AM (#32622800) Homepage

    Athiests - who think all religions are crap, and just hope people won't be jerks about their religions.

    I disagree. They're all annoying when people use religious teachings as the basis of their argument, which is quite often even when they aren't jerks. To the rest of us, it's like arguing that cutting down the forest will kill the unicorns, it's a position that can't be reasoned with because it has no basis in reason. That's minor however compared to what really differentiates the religions.

    Let's take adultery as an example. Huge breach of Christian and Muslim belief, in the ten commandments and lust is one of the seven deadly sins. What happens to you in most of the Christian world? Nothing - at least legally. Maybe God will send you downstairs for it, but that's for Him when the time comes. How is it to be a non-Christian in a Christian country? No problem. Now, in large parts of the Muslim world that'll get you death by stoning. Does it help if you're not a Muslim? Does it help if you renounce your religion and so is no longer bound by its rules? No.

    That is what makes it scary, there's no real freedom of religion if you'll be punished by a different religion's law, including the freedom not to believe. That is what makes Islam a real threat, not religion in general. And to get back to where I started, you can't reason about Sharia because no secular argument will ever compare to the claim that it's dictated by Allah himself. It's not the spirituality in itself that is scary but it's the idea of religious law, judge, jury and executioner that frightens me. If Muslims let Allah do the judging, I wouldn't worry at all.

  • And (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mahadiga (1346169) <mahadiga@gmail.com> on Saturday June 19, 2010 @03:35AM (#32623270) Homepage Journal

    Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...