Okay. That’s consistent. It’s fucking idiotic, but at least it’s consistent.
Gee, I was way off on this one :rolleyes:
A) There literally is no law concerning apostasy (leaving Islam) on the books in Egypt, much less one mandating the death penalty, which is why the vague hisbah laws are used instead of, y’know, laws against apostasy, B) Egyptian laws have literally nothing to do with the explicit disclaiming of the death penalty for apostasy by the specific UK Muslims you named that you falsely accused of not doing precisely that, and C) that disclaiming, contrary to your assertions, literally listed “no compulsion in religion” as the very reason for the disclaiming of the death penalty for apostasy, which was itself explicitly and directly defined as being leaving Islam.
So yes, you were way off.
People who leave Islam are prosecuted and executed for doing so, in Egypt; this is unsurprising, as 88 percent of Egyptians support executing those who leave Islam.
Tendentiously parsing “the fact that the English word ‘apostasy’ doesn’t appear in the Egyptian legal code, which is written in Arabic” to mean that “there is no death penalty for apostasy in Egypt” is literally what I noted that you would do yesterday, and literally what you are doing.
Uh, no, that’s not “literally” what I’m doing. Neither I nor anyone else involved or even mentioned in this thread has said anything remotely resembling “the fact that the English word ‘apostasy’ doesn’t appear in the Egyptian legal code, which is written in Arabic means there is no death penalty for apostasy in Egypt”, making this yet another one of your idiotic strawmen.
When I say that there are no laws on the books in Egypt covering apostasy, I mean literally that Egypt does not have a statutory ban on leaving or converting from Islam, under the English term apostasy, the Arabic term ridda, or anything else, and in fact Egypt’s codified law does not address at all, in any way, shape, or form, anyone leaving or converting from Islam. Hence the use of the extremely broad and massively vague hisbah laws, which are somewhat akin to being able to prosecute someone in the US for “violating the spirit of the Constitution” even if they haven’t broken any of the actual laws in the US Code.
A helpful analogy might be the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of “penumbral rights” in the US Constitution, such as the “right to privacy” which has been invoked to forbid legal restrictions on, e.g., using birth control or terminating pregnancy.
Although the “right to privacy” concept influences US jurisprudence, there’s nothing in the Constitution or other laws that explicitly establishes a specific right to privacy.
And yet, people are prosecuted and executed for apostasy in Egypt on a regular enough basis that it’s not even news, with the support of a huge supermajority of the population.
But as long as there’s “no law against apostasy” everything is fine. On to the real problem – someone drew a cartoon in Denmark!
It is necessary to note he has an interesting talent in inventing the strawmen in making assertions about what people mean although no one ever said it or even by a rational reading implied it.
I guess it is his only method of covering up his gross ignorance and constant mistakes of facts, and of course just outright lies and inventions.
By the way, it has been 57 days since Avijit Roy was murdered by Muslims for leaving Islam.
Teju Cole is [happy to boast](happy to boast) that he is “a regular contributor to the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Atlantic, Granta, and the New Inquiry.” He also writes for the Guardian as of fairly recently, though perhaps this relationship ended before he updated his website.
In the event that he devotes any one of his 5 or 6 columns to Roy, or ever mentions him again at all, I will update the thread.
Which has precisely zip to do with your false claim that “Every big name in ‘peaceful Islam’ in the UK – Abdullah al-Andalusi, Usama Hasan, even Mohammed Shafiq…has refused to distance himself from the death penalty for apostasy when directly asked.”
But it’s fun to see how blatantly and desperately you will push those goalposts in an effort to dodge taking responsibility for your bullshit.
Right, with the added problem that instead of being just something that the judiciary applies via interpretation, anyone at any time can sue anyone else based on it.
You’re the one who decided to start talking about Egypt in response to the fact that those people refuse to categorically oppose the death penalty for apostasy. Shrug.
Meanwhile, Muslims in the U.S. Congress seem to be laying the foundation for criminalizing “Islamophobic” speech:
Who’s saying that “everything is fine” concerning Islamist repression and persecution of dissidents in Egypt?
Not progressives, that’s for sure. For instance, check out what the liberal organization Human Rights Watch has to say about the current human rights situation in Egypt:
Just because we liberals care about getting facts right rather than indulging in ignorant ill-informed rants about poorly constructed strawmen doesn’t mean that we are in any way “fine” with persecution and tyranny by Islamist extremists.
Although I believe he is engaging in trolling at a level, at another level of course his obsession is clear and is likely real. As is his real intellectual deficit in being able to read actual text and not imaginary text - the real things you write not what his extremist ideology would have you write…
No, that was you, actually.
I was quoting a pamphlet written by British Muslim Usama Hasan (you know, one of the people you falsely accused of refusing to distance themselves from the death penalty for apostasy) about how the death penalty for apostasy contradicts inviolable Qur’anic principles and so had been abolished by several leading Islamic religious authorities. You started the Egypt derail in an effort to avoid admitting that Hasan had indeed done the very thing that you had falsely accused him of not doing.
So much straw, so hard to remember…
That’s the same request of visa denial to Islamophobic Dutch politician Geert Wilders that you posted about a couple pages back. While I don’t agree with Ellison and Carson that the “nuclear option” of visa denial is appropriate in Wilders’ case, their request is in no way “laying the foundation for criminalizing Islamophobic speech”.
To be consistent, of course, you should be similarly upset about Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) “laying the foundation for criminalizing Islamist-extremist speech” back in 2011 by making a similar request to the State Department to deny visas to radical Islamist preachers Choudary and Abu Izzadeen.
Where was your ire about that blatant attempt at suppression of free speech, given how staunch an advocate you claim to be of the right to free expression? Hmm?
I don’t think I had an account here, but of course, no one should be excluded from the U.S. based on their speech.
As the column points out, the stated rationale – that free speech must be limited in cases of “prejudice” or “inciting discrimination” – could apply to anything and is in no way unique to the speech of foreign visa-seekers.
When Ellison does unveil a “hate speech” bill, you’ll turn on a dime and claim it’s necessary since all those enlightened European countries have it, and why would we want to defend the free speech of racists anyway, fire in a crowded theater, yadda yadda.
If I decide not to let you into my house to spout off your bigoted bullshit here, but do nothing whatsoever to prevent you from saying whatever you want anywhere else you want, am I censoring you, Haberdash?
The U.S. isn’t part of dar-al Islam yet, kid.