[

I think it is a graphic illustration of the tension that exists between democratic institutions and the essentially theocratic nature of Islam, which doesn't recognize the separation of religion and state. — Wayfarer

I think that's a mischaracterization. Separation of church and state is a strategy for creating social stability. It was hard for some Christians to let go of political authority to allow that separation. They fought against it and some continue to to this day... not because Christianity is inherently theocratic, but for both elevated and vulgar reasons.

Union of church and state can also create a very strong social foundation. Europe enjoyed that kind stability until the Protestant Reformation. Where there is no need for separation, forces will probably tend to drive toward union.

The law is the law, it is on the books. Religious blasphemy is against the law in Indonesia and it is strictly enforced.

Australia and many other other 'secular' countries have hate speech laws, which stop abusive speech with civil and criminal penalties. I mention Australia because the conservative government had planned to amend Section 18 C of the Act, which prohibits offending someone on the basis of race, color or ethnicity. I read that the government shelved those plans at the insistence of Muslim leaders in the interests of forging closer community cooperation against extremists.

The basic issue is not between religion and government but freedom of speech versus the state's right to prohibit certain types of speech. Many countries have laws that prohibit hate speech. The USA has no hate speech laws, virtually all speech is allowed (with a few of exceptions). The question becomes one of what is required for civic order & human dignity in my opinion.

I think that's a mischaracterization. — Mongrel

Nothing you said shows how it's a mischaracterization.

I agree. Among world religions, Islam is the least amenable to the ideas of a secular state and freedom of speech, expression, and religion. This doesn't mean it has to be this way, as I think it does have the resources to change its disposition regarding such things, but nothing will change unless and until ordinary Muslims begin to change their views en masse. The so called "moderate Muslim," whom we should be defending, is a bit of an endangered species and under a double assault from both the fundamentalists in their religion and certain secular leftists who like to speak on behalf of all Muslims and thereby drown out voices other than the fundamentalist status quo.

No I suppose not. The showing there would be a matter of reviewing the history of Islam, talking about it's present manifestations in the world which include Turkey. Boring.

The cool story is the role separation plays historically... analyzing why union of church and state is such a strong social construct... and so what people are actually giving up when they accept separation.

No I suppose not. — Mongrel

X-)

Religious blasphemy is against the law in Indonesia and it is strictly enforced. — Cavacava

Laws against basphemy are routinely invoked for the most appalling savagery in Islamic states, such as Pakistan, where people are butchered or stoned to death for allegedly 'insulting religion'. Often this is used in vllage disputes when accusations are levelled over some petty argument, the mob whipped into a frenzy, and the alleged 'offender' dragged out and beaten to death in the street.

In this case 'Ahok, a Christian of Chinese descent, angered religious conservatives after he referenced a verse from the Islamic holy book, Al-Maidah 51 of the Qur’an, on the campaign trail in September. Ahok rather boldly told voters they should not be duped by religious leaders using the verse to justify the claim that Muslims should not be led by non-Muslims.'

It's widely being reported as 'democracy in the dock' which I think is a fair characterisation.

Ahok, the ethnic Christian-Chinese governor of Jakarta, has been found guilty of blasphemy, for disputing the fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. A sad day for democracy in Indonesia.

He will appeal. It's interesting to see that someone has purposefully sent out a youtube video that was edited in which he said the Qu'ran was lying. Ahok subsequently uploaded the full video: in reality he said people were lying to voters using the Qu'ran.

I wonder what the judges based their ruling on because the full video doesn't seem damning at all (assuming I can trust the translation).

A sad day for democracy in Indonesia. — Wayfarer

Yes, but it's not a freak verdict:

Andreas Harsono, an Indonesia researcher at Human Rights Watch, said ... more than 100 Indonesians have been convicted of blasphemy in the past decade, and acquittals in such cases were extremely rare. — Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/09/jakarta-governor-ahok-found-guilty-of-blasphemy-jailed-for-two-years

I think it is a graphic illustration of the tension that exists between democratic institutions and the essentially theocratic nature of Islam, which doesn't recognize the separation of religion and state. — Wayfarer

I think it shows less about the essential nature of Islam than it does about the currently prevailing conservative mood in Islam. Without reform and re-interpretation it is no doubt officially less amenable to the separation of church and state, but such has been a feature of the Islamic world at certain times and places.

I think it shows less about the essential nature of Islam than it does about the currently prevailing conservative mood in Islam — jamalrob

It's interesting how so many people are willing to attribute the kind of liberalism to Islam which Islam itself seems to be doing everything possible to destroy. To paraphrase Voltaire, 'I will defend to the death your right to say it, even if you are the one that kills me for it!'

I'm not sure if that's aimed at me or at others. In any case, one can attribute conservatism to actually existing Islam, as I just did, without thereby claiming that this conservatism is essential or eternal to Islam. It doesn't make a lot of sense to alienate Muslims who are sympathetic to reform, or are potentially so. That's the trouble with the Clash of Civilizations narrative: it's in danger of being self-fulfilling.

Islam (in its traditional and "modern fundamentalist" varieties) includes instructions for rulers and for governments. It includes laws against blasphemy and apostasy. Any "updating" of Islam in this regard will require a major, major upheaval of interpretations, scholarship, etc. etc. It's not impossible, of course, but it is a hard struggle for Muslims who aim at that. The "Islamic conservatives" will always have plenty of references (both in the Quran and in the opinion of scholars) to buck that trend.

The 'relaxed' attitude of Western civilization towards other faiths is a byproduct of the great secular success of this civilization (in a global scale); it is not written in stone. As the West fades away, it is likely that the defensiveness against other faiths will return. (It is already happening).

It includes laws against blasphemy and apostasy. — Mariner

There's nothing in the Qu'ran on "laws" against blasphemy and apostasy, as matters of faith are the provenance of Allah to judge. There are no wordly punishments on these things. In fact, the freedom of belief is repeatedly mentioned in the Qu'ran.

There is some stuff in the hadiths but we should ignore those. Why? Here's some blasphemy for you, the hadiths are the political motivated ramblings of a conservative clergy inventing what Muhammad said centuries after he lived because "Muhammad said..." is a useful tool for oppression.

Apparently though as a non-Muslim and non-clergy my opinion amounts to less than that of a gnat as if having a religious degree and belief are a prerequisite to sound reasoning.

Stephen Fry was very recently investigated for blasphemy in Ireland. He could have faced a criminal prosecution. Thankfully the case was dropped as "not enough people were outraged" and the law stipulates widespread outrage as a prerequisite for an infringement having taken place. Unfortunately, therein lies the difference.

There's nothing in the Qu'ran on "laws" against blasphemy and apostasy, as matters of faith are the provenance of Allah to judge. There are no wordly punishments on these things. In fact, the freedom of belief is repeatedly mentioned in the Qu'ran. — Benkei

You'll see I did not say otherwise. I said that "traditional and modern fundamentalist Islam" has such laws.

The idea that Islam should be judged by the Quran, as if the traditional praxis of the religion were unimportant and could be ignored, is strangely similar to fundamentalist Christianity if you ask me. It is certainly unanchored in reality.

Just this: every religion is theocratic by nature.

Yeah, that Islam is a bad, bad person, who has some really violent beliefs.

What's that you say? Islam isn't actually a person at all, but a label applied to hundreds of millions of people who have an extraordinarily wide range of beliefs amongst them?

Stop over-complicating things! Obviously this Islam guy is just bad, right? ... and anybody who doesn't say they hate him needs to be thrown in jail or at the very least kept out of our country (which of course has no violence in it at all)..

Yeah, that Islam is a bad, bad person, who has some really violent beliefs. — andrewk

It's not about people, but the politics and religion, and their relationship. All of your comments on the issue are motivated by respect for individual freedom of religious belief - which is a fine thing, but it's not necessarily intrinsic to Islamic culture.

but it's not necessarily intrinsic to Islamic culture — Wayfarer

nothing is intrinsic to Islamic culture, because there's no such thing as Islamic culture. That's my point.

there's no such thing as Islamic culture — andrewk

All these pages are about nothing, then.

In any case, there were big protests about the jailing of Ahok in Indonesia, with many moderates, and non-Muslims, expressing the view that the charge and the conviction were indeed a threat to democracy and pluralism in Indonesia, which I believe they are.

All these pages are about nothing, then. — Wayfarer

Surely that's not the first time you've found dubious info on wiki, is it? Wiki is a marvellous institution that has enriched my life in many ways, but it also has lots of errors. Sign up for an account and you can start correcting them. I do that from time to time on maths and science articles, when I have the energy. It's both fun and rewarding.

the charge and the conviction were indeed a threat to democracy and pluralism in Indonesia, which I believe they are. — Wayfarer

Yes. This charge is a terrible thing and makes the future of Indonesia's democracy, such as it is, look shaky. As Benkei pointed out, the governor didn't even criticise the Quran. He (the governor) said that people - the Violent Fundies - were lying about what it said.

It's not a Wiki article, it's simply a search on the phrase 'Islamic culture', which produces X million hits, all apparently in reference to something non-existent. Anyway, never mind, we agree on the main point.

I think talk of culture is not very useful. Where does one begin and where does it end? If they are separate, what does it mean people from one culture intact with another? How granular should it be? Are art-loving liberals living in upper Manhattan a separate culture?

I suggest we refrain from using the term.

I feel duty bound to post this here.

https://www.amnesty.org.au/act-now/iar834-indonesia-ahok/

I suggest we refrain from using the term [culture]. — Benkei

Along with all mention of 'different', also. It's inherently discriminatory.

it's simply a search on the phrase 'Islamic culture', which produces X million hits, all apparently in reference to something non-existent. — Wayfarer

Yes, it reports 77 million hits.

Then I Google 'Asian race' which is generally agreed by anthropologists and biologists to be a non-existent category, and get 186 million hits.

Conclusion: large numbers of Google hits do not validate concepts.

How about we discriminate based on people's actions and statements, rather than based on arbitrary, meaningless labels we want to slap on them, like Asian or Islamic.

For instance, we can agree that the people inciting the mobs that cowed the courts into convicting the governor were very dangerous, mean people and that we should do whatever we can to frustrate their nasty purpose.

'Unicorn' returns more hits than both combined.

Ergo, Unicorns are even more real than cultures.

I feel a rejoinder to Quine's 'On What Is' in the works.

Nevertheless, I believe that Islamic culture demonstrably exists, in the same way as any other culture. The fact that this is now contested is however interesting.

So google searches are the metric of whether something exists? Right. Here we are, in 2017.

So, doe Christian culture not exist? Does atheistic culture not exist? Does progressive liberal culture not exist? Does southern American conservative culture not exist? Is Barbecue not real? Is everything racist?

Culture itself doesn't exist, right?

Nevertheless, I believe that Islamic culture demonstrably exists, in the same way as any other culture. The fact that this is now contested is however interesting. — Wayfarer

My point is that it isn't a useful term for philosophical debate due to the issues I mentioned.