It seems to me, these two sides are feeding each other.

A little too tidy…simplify much?

1. the Xian West violates “western hegemonic HR discourse” too; it won’t be that bad to execute apostates since they’re traitors
2. Muslims are evil because they want to execute apostates

It seems to me, these two sides are feeding each other.

Four hundred years ago, Christians in the West figured out how to integrate freedom of conscience into their religion. It’s time for Muslim scholars to sack up and do the same for Islam. If HR and Islam are truly incompatible, then maybe Islam is an evil religion that needs to be wiped from the Earth. I don’t think so, but the choice is ya’ll’s. Just don’t be surprised if less and less Western liberals stand beside you when you make yourself so easy to misunderstand.

P.S. I’m also a fan of Stirling’s work!

Actions based on beliefs (religious or otherwise) are, of course, not absolute rights. Unless, perhaps, those actions are speech or entirely speech-like, but that’s for an unrelated reason.

Anyone advocating religious coercion, such as this git at Harvard, should be excluded from any public university.”

Do you not see the contradiction inherent in your two first sentences? If my religion tells me that I am to coerce others to join it, how can I practice it freely without violating your second argument?

The truth is that governments have EVERY right to proscribe religious freedom so that one’s religion does not cause undue harm to society. There is no such thing as an absolute freedom; they all come with rules and responsibilities.

For an example, the Bible and the Koran both have ample calls for followers to physically attack those of other faiths (and especially those of no faith at all). Now, people are free to call themselves Christians or Muslims, but if they follow the dictates of their sacred texts and kill a bunch of atheists on behalf of their god, I should hope the state would feel no compunction about prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of what their religion says. It’s if they didn’t do so, rather than if they did, that they would, as you claim, cease to exist.

To date, about 30 additional comments between the two links.

I’m glad Razib likes your writing, it’s too bad that your reading ability is not so good. Abdul-Basser does not advocate violence or coercion towards anyone, in fact he explicitly does the opposite. Condemning him for stating what Islamic scholars have held in the past (in a private email) is anti-intellectual and anti free speech, not pro-religious freedom in any way.

The fact that you think Harvard is a public university is a pretty good measure of the seriousness with which your argument should be treated.

Freedom of religion is an absolute and may not be abridged by any government. Any government which attempts to do so is, itself, illegitmate and has no right to exist.

Anyone advocating religious coercion, such as this git at Harvard, should be excluded from any public university.

I already commented above about how Mr Basser’s views were misconstrued; he was not advocating death for apostates but simply explaining the full
range of jurisprudence. But with respect to your specific point, freedom of religion is hardly the sole foundational basis for governmental legitimacy. If we are inclined to argue for a core set of universal
values (as I am inclined to do), then it would be freedom of speech, not religion, which should be primary among rights that governments may not infringe upon (as opposed to “granting” which implies power to taketh away).

And in fact where else but a university would the purest expression of these rights be found? Even if Basser was personally advocating death for apostates (which he was not), that too is free speech. And the
best response to bad speech is more speech, not less. If we are going to say that his comments are beyond the pale of discourse, then we are essentially defining thoughtcrime. That’s not a road we want to go down – it actually violates our basic values rather than preserves them.

and finally, I owe you an apology because I once recommended someone read Years of Rice and Salt when I actually meant to have them read Peshawar Lancers. Not that I mean any insult
towards Robinson’s work; they are just very different books, despite superficial similarities.