[noemon]

A Pakistani man who renounced his Muslim faith and became a humanist has had his application for asylum in the UK rejected after failing to correctly answer questions about ancient Greek philosophers.

plato.jpg (29.23 KiB) Viewed 2052 times

The Home Office said Hamza bin Walayat’s failure to identify Plato and Aristotle as humanist philosophers indicated his knowledge of humanism was “rudimentary at best”.

The Home Office also said Walayat did not face persecution for his beliefs. In a letter rejecting his asylum claim, seen by the Guardian, it said his assertion that he would be at risk in Pakistan, and could be killed by his family because of his beliefs and his renunciation of Islam, was unfounded.

Walayat, who has lived in the UK since 2011, said he had received death threats from members of his family and community in Pakistan after integrating into secular British life, forming a relationship with a non-Muslim partner and refusing to conform to the expectations of conservative Islam.

Apostates are subject to discrimination, persecution and violence in Pakistan. In March last year, a student who had stated he was a humanist on his Facebook page was murdered at his university.

Blasphemy is punishable by death under Pakistani law. In August, 24 British politicians wrote to the Pakistani government urging it to repeal its draconian blasphemy law, which has been used against religious minorities and humanists.

Walayat claimed asylum in July last year after being served with removal papers for overstaying his student visa.

After an interview with immigration officials, the Home Office said he had “been unable to provide a consistent or credible account with regards the main aspect of your claim, namely that you are a humanist”.

When tested on his knowledge of humanism, Walayat gave a “basic definition” but could not identify “any famous Greek philosophers who were humanistic”.

The letter said: “When you were informed by the interviewing officer that he was referring to Plato and Aristotle, you replied: ‘Yeah, the thing is because of my medication that is strong I just forget stuff sometimes’.”

The Home Office concluded: “Your knowledge of humanism is rudimentary at best and not of a level that would be expected of a genuine follower of humanism.”

Walayat joined the Humanists UK organisation in August, but said he had believed in the basic principles of humanism from childhood.

According to Humanists UK, “humanism is not a ‘canonical’ belief system, where adherents must learn and follow a strict set of behaviour codes. As a descriptive term, humanists can be someone who has simply rejected religious belief but holds some positive conception of human values.”

In a letter in support of Walayat’s asylum application, Bob Churchill, of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, said: “For many, the broad descriptive ‘humanist’ is just a softer way of saying atheist, especially if you come from a place where identifying as atheist may be regarded as a deeply offensive statement.”

Andrew Copson, of Humanists UK, said the move “set a dangerous precedent for non-religious people fleeing persecution. The Home Office is simply incorrect to claim that non-religious people seeking asylum don’t get the same protection in law as religious people do.”

The questions put to Walayat “reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of humanism”, he added.

Walayat told the Guardian he believed his life would be in danger in Pakistan. The Home Office decision had come as a shock, he added. “I’ve told the truth and instead of believing me they are trying to find excuses to kick me out of the country,” he said.

Many Christians he had encountered in the UK did not have a detailed grasp of the history of their faith, he said, “but it doesn’t mean they’re not Christian”.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need our protection and each claim is carefully considered on its individual merits.”

The Guardian

[Decky]

If he really wanted to be free of the clerics he would join his local Communist party and put them against a wall.

[Atlantis]

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need our protection and each claim is carefully considered on its individual merits.”

What utter BS. The little Hitlers at the Home Office never fail to find excuses for feeding refugees to the tyrants. Now, you need higher education and a knowledge of the ancient Greeks to get asylum in the UK.

[ThirdTerm]

The Home Office said Hamza bin Walayat’s failure to identify Plato and Aristotle as humanist philosophers indicated his knowledge of humanism was “rudimentary at best”.

Humanism was a Renaissance movement in Europe and it did not even exist in ancient Greece. Notably Thomas More and Francis Bacon are listed as humanist philosophers but I don't know why the Home Office insists that Plato and Aristotle were humanist philosophers. Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch) from Tuscany is considered the "Father of Humanism" and he helped spark the Renaissance. Since these humanist philosophers were against the tenets of Aristotelian philosophy or Aristotelianism, there is no way Aristotle was a humanist. Humanists reject any belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin, while Aristotle conceived of God (the prime or unmoved mover; Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, ho ou kinoúmenos kineî) as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.

One of the seminal figures of the humanist movement was Francesco Petrarca (1304–1374). In De sui ipsius et multorum aliorum ignorantia (On His Own Ignorance and That of Many Others), he elaborated what was to become the standard critique of Scholastic philosophy. One of his main objections to Scholastic Aristotelianism is that it is useless and ineffective in achieving the good life. Moreover, to cling to a single authority when all authorities are unreliable is simply foolish. He especially attacked, as opponents of Christianity, Aristotle’s commentator Averroes and contemporary Aristotelians that agreed with him. Petrarca returned to a conception of philosophy rooted in the classical tradition, and from his time onward, when professional humanists took interest in philosophy, they nearly always concerned themselves with ethical questions. Among those he influenced were Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406), Leonardo Bruni (c.1370–1444) and Poggio Bracciolini (1380–1459), all of whom promoted humanistic learning in distinctive ways.

One of the most original and important humanists of the Quattrocento was Lorenzo Valla (1406–1457). His most influential writing was Elegantiae linguae Latinae (Elegances of the Latin Language), a handbook of Latin language and style. He is also famous for having demonstrated, on the basis of linguistic and historical evidence, that the so-called Donation of Constantine, on which the secular rule of the papacy was based, was an early medieval forgery. His main philosophical work is Repastinatio dialecticae et philosophiae (Reploughing of Dialectic and Philosophy), an attack on major tenets of Aristotelian philosophy. The first book deals with the criticism of fundamental notions of metaphysics, ethics, and natural philosophy, while the remaining two books are devoted to dialectics.

Throughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, humanists were unanimous in their condemnation of university education and their contempt for Scholastic logic. Humanists such as Valla and Rudolph Agricola (1443–1485), whose main work is De inventione dialectica (On Dialectical Invention, 1479), set about to replace the Scholastic curriculum, based on syllogism and disputation, with a treatment of logic oriented toward the use of persuasion and topics, a technique of verbal association aiming at the invention and organization of material for arguments. According to Valla and Agricola, language is primarily a vehicle for communication and debate, and consequently arguments should be evaluated in terms of how effective and useful they are rather than in terms of formal validity. Accordingly, they subsumed the study of the Aristotelian theory of inference under a broader range of forms of argumentation. This approach was taken up and developed in various directions by later humanists, such as Mario Nizolio (1488–1567), Juan Luis Vives (1493–1540), and Petrus Ramus (1515–1572).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/renaissa/#H2

[Saeko]

"Let no one ignorant of Plato, enter."

[ness31]

Ha, I’m no expert at humanism so I won’t comment on the decision. I do however applaud the method the Home Office employed at testing someone’s claims

[snapdragon]

Walayat claimed asylum in July last year after being served with removal papers for overstaying his student visa.

Walayat joined the Humanists UK organisation in August,

Nice try, Mr Walayat, but you don't have a right to stay here.

[Heisenberg]

This sounds like a pretty amateurish attempt to game the asylum system, and makes a mockery of people who go through the proper immigration process.

[ThirdTerm]

Knowledge of classical philosophers used as a test for ‘non-religiousness’
The Home Office also sought to test the ‘non-religiousness’ of Hamza by asking him to name ancient Greek philosophers who had held humanistic worldviews. When he failed to name Plato and Aristotle, it was deemed that his knowledge was ‘not of a level that would be expected of a genuine follower of humanism.’ This line of questioning is unfair and problematic for several reasons. Firstly, Plato is not a humanist. His questioning of then-conventional beliefs may in some ways have contributed to the history of humanist thought but some of his ideas (for example his totalitarianism) are profoundly un-humanist. But even if it weren’t for this glaring error, it is unlikely that a religious claimant would be treated in the same manner. It is not expected that a Christian should be able to answer questions about St Thomas Aquinas or know who drafted the Nicene Creed in order to demonstrate their religious status. For some, a knowledge of the history of their belief system may be of personal interest, but it is a not a means of determining the strength of their convictions. This is the same for humanists.

Secondly, these questions imply that the Home Office is treating humanism as a monolithic, doctrinaire-positive tradition. Humanism is not a ‘canonical’ belief system, where adherents must learn and follow a strict set of behaviour codes. As a descriptive term a humanist can be someone who has simply rejected religious belief but holds some positive conception of human values. Such an individual may well not even have heard of humanism. Therefore, one does not ‘follow’ humanism in the sense implied.

Humanists UK Chief Executive and IHEU President Andrew Copson commented,

‘We are appalled by the way the Home Office has handled Hamza’s claim for asylum; it sets a dangerous precedent for non-religious people fleeing persecution. The Home Office is simply incorrect to claim that non-religious people seeking asylum don’t get the same protection in law as religious people do. Further, the questions put to Hamza not only reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of humanism, but also show that the Home Office, as a public body, is failing in its duty under the Equality Act 2010. Humanists UK will be writing to the Minister of State for Immigration to address these concerns.’

https://humanism.org.uk/2018/01/17/home ... aristotle/

My graduate paper was on Aristotle's theology but this UK humanist organisation further argues that Plato was not a humanist, too. The Home Office's total lack of knowledge on ancient philosophers is appalling and the use of a fake academic question to reject applicants was comparable to the infamous Australian language test. Even if the interviewing officer only had rudimentary knowledge on Greek philosophy, some other college graduates in the Home Office should have corrected his embarrasing mistake. I expect a more honest approach by the British, who are supposed to be morally or genetically superior to the Aussies. But I don't think Britain needs to give shelter to Pakistani humanists who claim to be facing religious persecution. Malala Yousafzai was a special case because she was actually shot by the Taliban.

[foxdemon]

@ThirdTerm I agree with your position.

There seems to be a lot of projecting contemporary beliefs onto historical persons and ideas lately. The contemporary Western liberal consensus, for example, seems to think rule of law, democracy and people like Voltaire all belong to their liberal order. In fact these preceded liberalism as it exists today. It is about time they got called out for their appropriation of history.


On another subject, I am curious as to how you would justify your assertion that the British are genetically superior to Aussie.

[Decky]

On another subject, I am curious as to how you would justify your assertion that the British are genetically superior to Aussie.

Isn't it obvious? The Australians were formed form the British criminal underclass. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[foxdemon]

Isn't it obvious? The Australians were formed form the British criminal underclass. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

A lot of the convicts were Irish. The English were busy subduing rebellion in Ireland and had to shift the discontent somewhere.

So are you suggesting it is the Irish genes that make Aussies genetically inferior?

Before we go any further with this, I should point out the upper class toffs from the home countries are inbred blue bloods. The English will loss the debate on that grounds alone.

[Decky]

No I am suggesting that they are all criminals.

[foxdemon]

No I am suggesting that they are all criminals.

What I am suggesting is that the British idea of Aussies being criminals is a cover up of history. Rather than criminals, the convicts were Irish rebels, justified in their opposition to British Imperialism. Modern Britain is in denial of their past wrong doing and pretend it was their victims fault. It is safer to pretend that Aussies are criminals that acknowledge the truth.

So the criminals remain in England.

[Decky]

Suggest what you like, we all know what the shackle dragers are.