Malaysian Minister Calls For Atheists To Be “Hunted Down”

400px-1922_hunting_license85px-Coat_of_arms_of_Malaysia.svgMalaysian Minister Shahidan Kassim has made international news by proclaiming that atheists should be “hunted down” and that constitutional rights do not apply to them. He is not alone in the heavily Islamic nation in this hateful view and many support such a crackdown.

The sheer ignorance and intolerance of Shahidan Kassim is breathtaking.  He called on the public to help hunt for members of Kuala Lumpur chapter of Atheist Republic.  He insisted that these people were beneath the constitution and that indeed they are an offense to it:

“The (Federal Constitution) does not mention atheists. It goes against the Constitution and human rights. . . . I suggest that we hunt them down vehemently and we ask for help to identify these groups.”

Shahidan Kassim explained that an atheist was just an uneducated person who needed to be educated on Islam:

“They actually don’t want to be atheists but it happens because of the lack of religious education. They are misled with a new school of thought . . .We need to return them to the faith and correct their aqidah if they are Muslims. To all Mufti’s and state exco’s, take note.”

The hatred for atheists reflects the underlying belief that Sharia law should be imposed on everyone. Atheists in Malaysia have defied the continual threats to their safety to live their lives according to their own beliefs.  They fight for principles like free speech and free association against the constant threats from hateful leaders like Shahidan Kassim.

155 thoughts on “Malaysian Minister Calls For Atheists To Be “Hunted Down”

  1. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes are scum. As someone who is non-religious, I really don’t care what a person’s beliefs are, as long as they keep them to themselves.

  2. “Diane – if you want evidence read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I did.”

    Paul, I read The Rise and Fall as well, but I can’t rely upon my memory for such exact details . Let me quote a few lines. ~Pg. 192

    “The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known.’ …

    “Though this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag where they scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals…”

    “At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson… set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He had been picked up by the S.A a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several public buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next.”

    This was coincidental but utilized (according to Shirer) by the Nazis. Van der Lubbe “was a dupe of the Nazis. He was encouraged to try to set the Reichstag on fire. But “the main job was to be done…by the storm troopers.” He then goes on to say that Lubbe didn’t have the capability to set such a large fire.

    “The idea for the fire almost certainly originated with Goebbels and Goering”

    I seem to remember him being pardoned for the crime not that long ago.

    It is dangerous to make assumptions and provide yourself with moral authority based upon your having read the book. Here we can see how wrong your memory was. I hesitated to say what I thought Shirer had said because I don’t trust my memory for such details that came from a singular reading. We had this same problem earlier with Churchill’s naughty papers.

    • allan – I appreciate your pick-up on Shirer, however, my contention is that he did it all himself. There was never any proof the S.A. was involved although their were rumors continuing through the Nuremberg Trials. Still no answers. We do know that van der Lubbe was setting the place alight.

      • Paul, you were the one that told us that your proof was Shirer and Shirer proves all or almost all of your contentions wrong. Since everyone is dead and there is no new information I don’t think we can know anymore than we do today, so I think I will take your advice and use what Shirer says, not what you say he said.

        “Though this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag where they scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals…”

        That I believe is pretty clear as are the other statements I copied above.

        If one were to dispense with much of what Shirer says logic tells us that much of what you said is wrong. Could a feeble minded arsonist start such a big fire so rapidly? I don’t believe that was Lubbe’s MO and I’ll bet if arson investigators looked at all the details they would disagree with your contentions.

        I will listen to what you essentially told Diane and that is to listen to Shirer which I have done and Shirer tells a different storty than you.

        • allan – historians have come down on both sides of the story for a long long time. I did not remember the Shirer supported the S.A. claim as well as the van der Lubbe claim. That is my bad. You pick which side you want to be on. 🙂 I will pick my side.

          • If you have a side that is based upon knowledge, then you have a citation because you very quickly gave a citation to Diane which as I have said over and over again was wrong. Now you have to find an equally strong citation to prove Shirer wrong otherwise it appears as if your choice of sides is not based upon knowledge, rather it is based upon what you would like to believe.

            • allan – I do not wish to pick a fight with you. It is not worth my effort. However, can you independently find factual support for Shirer’s claim about the Nazis?

              • “I do not wish to pick a fight with you.”

                Paul, it certainly seems that you do with to pick a fight especially since your evidence was Shirer who draws opposite conclusions from you. So far you haven’t produced one thread of reliable evidence from another reputable historian that proves Shirer wrong and you right.

                Then you ask: “can you independently find factual support for Shirer’s claim about the Nazis?” Don’t you think that Shirer researches almost all of the information available? You should be the one producing reputable facts to argue with Shirer. He is considered the expert.

                  • Paul, we have already gone down many routes and earlier today I went down a similar route with Diane. I don’t know why you say I won’t do the research when I actually went back to Shirer’s book that you used for evidence and then copied our his statements on the affair. They didn’t agree with your underlying contention. But I even pointed out in the first sentence I copied that Shirer though drawing his own conclusion said no one can be sure.

                • Allan, I think Paul told me to read Shirer because Shirer accepts that van der Lubbe was a communist–not because Paul accepts Shirer’s theory of The Reichstag Fire. The two issues could be treated separately. But the question of van der Lubbe’s politics is only of interest if one seeks to blame “a communist” rather than “communists” in general for The Reichstag Fire.

                  The best you could get on that count is that van der Lubbe was expelled from two different socialist parties in The Netherlands for being overly eager to offer Dutch authorities unsolicited claims of sole-responsibility for actions not authorized by either of those socialist parties. IOW, they didn’t trust Marinus to do much else besides distributing party literature to supplement his meager disability pension. He was too keen on glory. Which may well be the saddest part of van der Lubbe’s story. FTR, it’s equally possible that Marinus wanted to prove that he was fully capable of revolutionary action, because of his learning disability and his poor eyesight, as well as his expulsion from both socialist parties in The Netherlands.

                    • Diane – Lenin kicked all the Jews out of the Bolsheviks when he took power. Still, they were Bolsheviks at heart. And van der Lubbe professed to being a Communist, whether they wanted to claim him or not.

                    • Paul, the communists in The Soviet Union killed a great many people including socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and labor unionists. IMO, calling those people communists adds insult to the injury. Marinus van der Lubbe was in no way whatsoever aligned with the communists in The Soviet Union; and neither were the socialist parties in The Netherlands that kicked Marinus out.

                  • “not because Paul accepts Shirer’s theory of The Reichstag Fire.”

                    Diane, Paul seems to disagree with your contention in his own words on several occaasions. Here is one.

                    ” I did not remember the Shirer supported the S.A. claim as well as the van der Lubbe claim.”

                    • In that case I guessed wrong, Allan. Even so, Paul’s case is best demonstrated in AJP Taylor’s article the link to which I posted in a reply to Paul somewhere on this thread. Shirer’s view on the question was, in fact, the one that I and many others took for granted for many years.

                      Meanwhile, we veered off on this tangent because of my reply to DSS who claimed only that outlawing The Free Thinkers was not the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power. So the entire digression is my fault. Remember, Allan, Paul conceded that the Nazis took advantage of The Reichstag Fire.

                    • Yes, Diane, your article that I only scanned, contained an alternate theory though I believe I stated some of my possible concerns.

                      Yes, Paul “conceded” that the Nazis took advantage of the Reichstag Fire, but I don’t know of any historian that disagreed with that opinion.

  3. Well, I am with the Malaysian Minister on this one. To them, their country is a religious one, and Islam is the basis for many laws. Atheists are on a par with traitors, who defy the legitimacy of the government. They have a choice – a relatively stable society where people follow the teachings of Islam, or a mess like Western countries, who are basically ungovernable at this point.

    To have the first, you have to get rid of the atheists.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      • I am not at all sure that “Freedom of Religion” covers atheists, who have no religion at all. Perhaps in our country, but I think the Malaysian Minister is on to something. Hopefully, they will actually hunt the Atheists down, and maybe make them start attending Sunday School, or whatever they have in Malaysia.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        • Lynette, does the free exercise of religion include instigating RaHoWa in America? If our government is prohibited from establishing any religion, and if that prohibition does not extend freedom from religion to atheists, then how will American Christians protect themselves from Sharia law and Manson Family Values? Exactly how many American Christians do you, Charlie, The Family and Shahidan Kassim intend to kill, Lynette? Would that be anything other than levying war against The United States, or any State thereof?

          A charge of treason is never to be taken [nor hurled] lightly by anyone, Lynette.

          • Diane – are you changing your nom de blog just to chat with Squeeky? You never answered my question. Do you have a personal connection to the Manson case, however tenuous?

            • Paul, I’m waiting for SFGR to renounce The Manson Family and RaHoWa before I answer your question about my connections to The Bugliosi family.

              • Diane – made her feelings very clear about the Manson Family a very long time ago. You are new here, she owes you nothing.

        • How can “freedom of religion” not apply to “freedom from religion”? It is like saying it is free to go anywhere, but one cannot cross a street.

          Dictatorships can have freedom of speech where after one utilizes that freedom their head is cut off. I guess it is a matter of interpretation as to whether the Malaysian government is a dictatorship or is constitutionally based.

    • Hey Lynette. How are you? How’s Charlie? Which lyrics from which Beatles’ song(s) on The White Album did Charlie shamelessly misinterpret as declaring death to atheists? Incidentally, do you still believe that Charlie is the second coming of your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? If so, will The Manson Family forcibly convert America to Manson Family Values? And when, exactly, did you, Charlie and The Family affirm the legitimacy of the government? When you tried to instigate a Racial Holy War?

  4. Islamic majority nations have all struggled with intolerance of other religions, as well as forced conversions. It’s kind of like they are stuck 1000 years ago. Sad.

  5. “Shahidan Kassim explained that an atheist was just an uneducated person who needed to be educated on Islam:

    “They actually don’t want to be atheists but it happens because of the lack of religious education. They are misled with a new school of thought . . .We need to return them to the faith and correct their aqidah if they are Muslims. To all Mufti’s and state exco’s, take note.”

    I hope he realizes that there are plenty of people in the world who think that Muslims are uneducated and need to be educated on Christianity or another religion or atheism. The Malaysian minister should consider what will happen to Muslims outside Isamic countries if that philosophy is to take hold. He and other Muslims may be hoist by their own petard.

  6. Maybe our government should identify and prosecute Muslims – under the theory that there’s no good Muslim, just as there was no good Communist back in the “I led three lives” days.

    • Maybe our government should identify and prosecute Muslims – under the theory that there’s no good Muslim,

      Using the theory of Equal Protection under the Law, if they targeted Muslims equal to how they target Christians, they would at least error on the side of national security.

  7. One thing Leftists advocating for Muslims is they do not understand that they hate Atheists above all.

    So they…
    Hate Gays
    Oppress Women
    and Despise Atheists

    Yet the group advocating for them are….
    Gay
    Feminists
    Atheists

    Meanwhile the Left claims they are smarter than everyone else. No, you are just too delusional to understand how stupid you are.

    • Just as the right claims they are smarter than everyone else but they are too delusional to understand how stupid they are. Anonemouse proves this.

    • Anonemouse: The refusal to hold all Muslims responsible for Islamicist terrorism remains a necessary tenet of our military doctrine for fighting a war on terror. Otherwise, Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia, touching the orb and promising beaucoup bucks for The Saudi pledge to fight terror makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well accuse the brave men and women of The Armed Forces of the United States of being “Leftists advocating for Muslims.” Poppycock, Anonemouse.

  8. What a hypocrite JT is when he says: “The hatred for atheists reflects the underlying belief that Sharia law should be imposed on everyone. Atheists in Malaysia have defied the continual threats to their safety to live their lives according to their own beliefs. They fight for principles like free speech and free association against the constant threats from hateful leaders like Shahidan Kassim.”

    JT LOVES Sharia Law and has worked pro bono to get Islamic terrorist enablers off the hook. He wants to import as many migrants from nations like Malaysia as possible, preferably illegal migrants. He also wants to give them free housing, free food, and a stipend to help get them started in destroying America from within.

    There’s no cure for Leftism.

    • Ralph, you’re wrong. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly being wrong. Jonathan Turley doesn’t not love Sharia law. He holds a well-nigh absolutist position on The First Amendment.

      Has Trump put Malaysian Muslims on his Travel-Ban list? What free housing? What free food? What stipend? There are cures for propaganda, Ralph.

  9. The sheer ignorance and intolerance of Shahidan Kassim is breathtaking.

    Do you have a macro which produces text for you? He is certainly intolerant. There is no indication that he is ignorant. That’s a property orthagonal to intolerance.

  10. Religion and politics are very similar in their efforts to assert fake facts in order to take control of people.

    When people say, “I don’t mind surveillance, because I don’t do anything wrong.” they forget that their religious and political positions, or lack thereof, can make them the target of those who think otherwise.

    • Religion and politics are very similar in their efforts to assert fake facts in order to take control of people.

      You might meet us half way and demonstrate every once in a while that you are or ever have been familiar with any true facts or ever make any non-inane moral judgments.

      • DSS, the world was not created in six days, nor is love subject to command.

        Olly, do you assert that Jefferson was not a Deist? Or do you not know what Deism is?

        • Olly, do you assert that Jefferson was not a Deist? Or do you not know what Deism is?

          You forgot to ask if I still beat my wife.

          Since Doglover dodged the question then perhaps you would actually attempt to answer it directly rather than ask questions about the author. You do realize 55 other men signed off on it, all with varying religious beliefs besides Deism?

          Here’s a hint: It doesn’t require one to believe in God to defend it.

        • DSS, the world was not created in six days, nor is love subject to command.

          You fancy this statement is something other than non sequitur?

    • Religion and politics are very similar in their efforts to assert fake facts in order to take control of people.

      Do you assert the principled arguments made in our Declaration of Independence are based in fake facts?

    • There is a difference between religion and politics at least in our country. Politics leads to laws that bind the citizens, while religion only binds those that adhere to that religion unless one is dealing with a religion that advocates a political agenda. I don’t understand anyone’s hatred of religion that is voluntary and is promoting moral behavior for htose that belong.

      • Well said, Allan. Religion literally means the ties that bind people together. It is possible for laws and constitutions to serve a similar social function; provided that laws and constitutions do not establish a State religion nor prohibit the free exercise of any given religion. See Prof. Turley’s position on Mormon polygamy with respect to that latter proviso. As for the hatred of religion, it is, I suspect, primarily driven by an understanding of the history of so-called religious wars that result from the admixture of religion and politics. See The Thirty Years War or The Defenestration(s) of Prague. IMO, most religious wars are actually straightforward political wars between adversaries cloaking their causes in the garb of religion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s