Losing their religion: the hidden crisis of faith among Britain’s young Muslims

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/may/17/losing-their-religion-british-ex-muslims-non-believers-hidden-crisis-faith

As debate rages over the radicalisation of young British Muslims, are we overlooking a different crisis of faith? Ex-Muslims who dare to speak out are often cut off by their families and fear for their lives. A brave few tell us their stories


Imtiaz Shams of Faith to Faithless: ‘At 20, I actually thought I was the only Muslim atheist in the world. I didn’t know you could leave. There’s not a concept of it.’ Photograph: Andy Hall for the Observer

Andrew Anthony
Sunday 17 May 2015 05.30 EDT Last modified on Sunday 17 May 2015 05.32 EDT

Sulaiman Vali is a softly spoken 32-year-old computer engineer. A natural introvert not drawn to controversy or given to making bold statements, he’s the kind of person who is happiest in the background. He lives alone in a modest house on a quiet street in a small town in East Northamptonshire. He doesn’t want to be any more specific than that about the location. “If someone found out where I lived,” he explains, “they could burn my house down.”

Why should such an understated figure, someone who describes himself as a “nobody”, speak as if he’s in a witness protection programme? The answer is that six years ago he decided to declare that he no longer accepted the fundamental tenets of Islam. He stopped being a believing Muslim and became instead an apostate. It sounds quaintly anachronistic, but it’s not a term to be lightly adopted.

Last week the hacking to death in Bangladesh of the blogger Ananta Bijoy Das was a brutal reminder of the risks atheists face in some Muslim-majority countries. And in an era in which British Islamic extremists travel thousands of miles to kill those they deem unbelievers, an apostate’s concern for his or her security at home is perhaps understandable.

“Oh yeah, I’m scared,” agrees Nasreen (not her real name) a feisty 29-year-old asset manager from east London who has been a semi-closeted apostate for nine years. “I’m not so worried about the loonies because it’s almost normal now to get threats. What worries me is that they go back to my parents and damage them, because that’s not unheard of.”

more at link

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Is that a 'crisis of faith' or a 'crisis from faith'?

Seems to me that the only crisis is that former Muslims are in danger from current ones.

[cbayer]

2. Agree. They are lucky to be in the UK and not in the ME.

Articles like this will help, imo.

[edhopper]

3. Maybe one day

Islam will benefit from the same influences of Secularism that Christianity and Judaism has.

[cbayer]

4. Maybe someday we will all reach a place where it's ok

to not believe or to believe and, if you do, to believe what you want.

This harsh criticism of people because of their position on religion is more dangerous than any religion itself.

[Promethean]

5. False equivalency

Atheist says religion is BS on the internet is not equal to millions of muslims willing to kill these people for thought crime.

[cbayer]

7. Strawman. Black or white. Appeal to emotion.

People that judge others based solely on their beliefs or lack of beliefs are wrong. That is prejudice and sometimes it's bigotry.

It is no different if an atheist judges all believers than if a muslim judges someone who has left islam. You can't justify your own bias while condemning others who hold similar biases.

[trotsky]

21. "Strawman. Black or white. Appeal to emotion."

Funny. That's exactly what you did in the post prior.

[edhopper]

6. Yes

harsh criticism is so much worse than beheading.

That is one of the more ridiculous things you have ever said.

[cbayer]

8. Prejudice is prejudice.

If you want to say, well my prejudice isn't as bad as that person's prejudice, so mine is ok, go for it.

It will be far from one of the more ridiculous things you have ever said, but it will be up there.

[edhopper]

9. "harsh criticism" is prejudice?

So can I criticise a religion but not "harshly"?

What constitutes "harsh"?

How is "harsh criticism" of religion, even bigoted. Because I don't concede that the inestimably small chance that a God exists is of equaly weight to no God at all?

And could you give an example of a specific "harsh criticism" that is the same as say, marching a hundred people into a stadium and beheading them, or burning someone to death.

You have double downed with the ridiculous.

[cbayer]

10. You can do what ever you like.

I think that the prejudice shown by some towards others based solely on what they believe or don't believe is very bad.

Would you like me to make my words stronger?

And read carefully. I did not say criticism of religion. I said harsh criticism of people because of their position on religion.

That means those that believe, those that don't believe and those that may just believe differently.

Bigotry is dangerous. Bigots may not act violently but they may give others the ammunition they need to act violently.

You want your prejudices to be ok because you don't really think they hurt anyone else. But you think you have the right to condemn others just for being believers and will make the case that the mere fact that they identify with a specific religion that has negative elements, they promote the bad within those groups.

Sheer and utter hypocrisy.

It is you that have doubled down on the ridiculous and shown your hand all in one post.

[Promethean]

11. Interesting tack shes decided to take.

She is just calling everybody who disagrees with her a bigot. An extremely dishonest tactic but not an alteration of her usual pattern.

[cbayer]

12. Feel free to talk directly to me.

I am not calling everyone that disagrees with me a bigot and I am not dishonest. I am challenging those that make excuses for their own prejudices while they simultaneously condemn the prejudices of others.

You want to call me chronically dishonest? Have the courage to do it directly.

[Promethean]

13. Did I post that in some secret conversation where only a few people could see it?

Have you not participated in the thread previously? You respond like I somehow posted that expecting you not to see it. More dishonesty. Seriously why do you do it? Why do you value your integrity and credibility so little?

[cbayer]

14. No, you posted it around me and I objected to that.

I'm not dishonest and I very much value my integrity and credibility. Your personally attacking my character is a prototypical ad hominem.

I love playing these logical fallacy games with you because it's so easy!

You've got nothing and I accept your surrender.

[Promethean]

16. Ad Hom

Is a slippery fallacy. Sometimes it is serves an actual logical purpose. For instance if I see a speaker who lectures at lengths about vaccines and how they have been proven to not only be ineffective but are harmful. Is it Ad Hom to point out that they failed med school and that there is tons of evidence to the contrary of his claims? When "Dr" Hovind was doing his apologetics making all kinds of claims and trying to use his credibility as a scientist was it ad hom to point out he got his "Doctorate" at a non-accredited institution that exists in a couple of trailers in the middle of nowhere? In this case, yes, attacking these individual's credibility is fully justified.

In the case of you, you constantly make arguments that don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny and when people point out the giant glaring flaws (see AtheistCrusader for an example in this thread) you just ignore them and/or double down. That is dishonest and I point this out. This time though you were preemptive with attacking the credibility of those who disagreed with you by calling us bigots. A different form of dishonesty but still dishonest. The thing is I don't think you are an idiot so by refusing to believe you are stupid I can only believe you know you are being dishonest and just don't care.

[skepticscott]

18. That's this poster's modus operandi

Stick her fingers in her ears to anything that undermines her agenda. Ignore anything that she can't answer, or convince herself that the person she is arguing with actually agrees with her, rather than change her thinking. she's been doing it for a long, long time.

[cbayer]

19. Ad hom

is an attack on character, which is exactly what you have done here.

BTW, I don't respond to some people because I can't see their posts.

I'm neither stupid nor dishonest. I just have a different POV than you do and you don't like it.

[skepticscott]

20. There is also a persistent meme

that all points of view are equally legitimate and equally well supported by facts and reason. Unfortunately, simply saying "I disagree with you" is about the weakest argument imaginable.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. You're essentially criticizing islam right now, you hypocrite.

The Qur'an itself, and the Hadiths are littered with negative pronouncements for those who leave Islam, whether to atheism, or to another faith entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

The Qur'an specifies that apostates should be punished, but doesn't say precisely how. The Hadiths do, and often results in Islamic nations with laws punishing it by imprisonment or even execution.

This harsh criticism of people because of their position on religion is more dangerous than any religion itself

Pursuant to the content of your own OP and the rest of your comments in this thread, you are denying Islam one of its own tenets. One that most of us recognize as a human rights abuse, and one that most reasonable people consider fair game for harsh criticism. Whether its an implementation of that rule as innocuous as shunning/refusal to do business, or scaling up to fines, imprisonment, or execution, to say nothing of extrajudicial punishments or harassment.

You want your cake and to eat it too. You want to criticize people like me for pointing out actual harm inculcated in religions, but out of the other side of your mouth, you too criticize religions. Make up your mind.

[trotsky]

22. Dayum, nice catch AC.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[trotsky]

28. No, cb.

I'm pretty sure that chopping off heads, protecting pedophile priests, FGM, and on and on and on...

are all FAR WORSE than criticizing religion. We will forever disagree on this. Murder >>>>>> critcism.

[Rob H.]

31. Aw, come on, now

Gay men being thrown off buildings and then stoned to death if the fall doesn't kill them, apostates being beheaded, and atheist bloggers being murdered for what they write aren't nearly as bad as people being critical of the religious beliefs that mandate those penalties.

[trotsky]

32. Criticism is the WORST!

If only mean atheists would stop criticizing religion, then the religious wouldn't be forced to act violently. Or something. Because reasons.

[Rob H.]

33. And don't forget satirical t-shirts!

They're pure evil and meant to be taken completely seriously, y'all! I get the willies just thinking about them.

[cpwm17]

29. That's dangerous and wrong.

The religious deserve no special protection for their bad ideas. Many religious people spend a lot of time condemning people that don't think or act like them. They very much deserve criticism. No one is special in this world.

You are calling people that harshly criticize religion dangerous. But you are, right there, harshly criticizing people based on their religious beliefs.

Some believers and non-believers seem to conflate criticism of religion with the promotion of bigotry, and worse, against the religious.

Criticizing religion is fine. Blaming the bad actions of some members of a religion on all members of the same religion is bad, and is often used as a cover for racism.

Condemning some infamous war-mongering atheists is not the same as condemning ones right to criticize religion, as some atheists seem to think.

Condemning religions is not the same as promoting bigotry and war, as some theist seem to think.

We are all equal in this world and we all deserve criticism for the promotion of harmful ideas.

[cbayer]

30. What is dangerous and wrong?

Are you arguing against the 1st amendment protections afforded to the religious?

I have never argued against criticism, but I have argued against intolerance and prejudice based solely on the fact that someone has religious belief. Intolerance and criticism of specific beliefs is clearly warranted, but that is not what I am addressing.

I think prejudice, intolerance and bigotry are dangerous. Who is it I am harshly criticizing for having religious beliefs?

We are all equal and my post was about allowing people to believe or not believe. Promoting harmful ideas is an entirely separate issue.

[Yorktown]

17. “If someone found out where I lived,” he explains, “they could burn my house down.”

Shows many muslims take the Quran and hadiths seriously.

Another proof the ideology itself must be amended.

[edhopper]

23. That criticism

sounds a bit "harsh" to me.

[cbayer]

24. Oh, that's sad. Really.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Your own fault.

[trotsky]

27. You have yet to identify what makes criticism "harsh" and therefore worse...

than the bad religion itself. So there ya go.

[Yorktown]

35. Sorry. I apologize.

I tend to take texts seriously.

My mistake. Shame on me.

[DetlefK]

26. You are kidding, right? Amended by whom?

And why would any Muslim care?
"You are trying to change Islam? You are an apostate. I kill you."


And btw, maybe we should amend Christianity to do away with all the pro-slavery stuff and the misogyny and the pork-hatin'. All we need is to rewrite the Bible and to get every last Christian on Earth to accept the updated version.

[Yorktown]

34. I meant 'amended' as in disregarded just like most Christians disregard the Bible.

Seriously, when you see bishops ranging from condoning the death penalty for gays (Nigeria) to being gay themselves (US, UK), the impartial observer can only conclude they do not read from he same book.

Since they do read from the same book, the impartial observer can only conclude that book is as much a source of moral guidance as, say, the road map to Interstate 97.

In short, let the Quran become just some kind of totem, its useless and violent content unread and forgotten.