Islam and Liberty?

[Hugo]

After discussions with the moderators I am proposing a new thread with the perhaps provocative title 'Liberty and Islam'. In keeping with my usual practise I will begin with a general discussion of what liberty or we can say freedom might mean. Please comment or add your own ideas BUT please keep postings:

• On topic
• No more that about one screen full at a time.
• With a font size to about 12
• Free of inserts that take several pages thus ensuring that no one reads them.

1. The English dictionary defines liberty and freedom in very similar ways and typically as immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority, freedom of choice meaning freedom to chose ones occupation, liberty of opinion, liberty of worship and liberty of thoughts and feelings. I suppose underpinning these idea is that we exist in a condition to all of the above without externally imposed restraints. In contrast, freedom does not mean I think that we can think, and say and do anything without restraint or concern for others; and indeed we have a word for that called anarchy.

2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:

The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.

In Saudi Arabia or Iran for examples you cannot freely import and distribute Bibles or a list of other books.

Wikipedia was supposed to give us all freedom but like many other innovations on the web they are increasingly being taken over by a small number of very large corporations or manipulated by governments.

3. Thomas Paine in his book 'On Liberty' had I think the right idea and that was that liberty is only guarded when the people can set limits to the power rulers or governments are able to exercise over its peoples. This was done in two ways:

Granting certain immunities or you can say political rights and it would be a breach of the duty for the ruler or government to infringe and do do so would justify resistance and rebellion.

Secondly, establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community or or body of some sort was required.

Western Governments for the most part long ago adopted democracy as the best mode for setting limits and creating constitutional checks and of course the separation of church and state.

4. Finally, in this first post, I mention theocracies such as Iran or Saudi Arabia where one supposes limits are set by God. However, there does not seem to be any compelling evidence that theocracies such as these work any better than democracies or anything else and history seems to show them often to be despotic and averse to basic freedoms and because they always claim God is on their side almost totally intolerant to dissent. This does not mean that liberal democracies cannot be intolerant but at least its citizens can voice an opinion and its rulers cannot claim any kind of God given infallibility.

[CosmicPathos]

After discussions with the moderators I am proposing a new thread with the perhaps provocative title 'Liberty and Islam'. In keeping with my usual practise I will begin with a general discussion of what liberty or we can say freedom might mean. Please comment or add your own ideas BUT please keep postings:

• On topic
• No more that about one screen full at a time.
• With a font size to about 12
• Free of inserts that take several pages thus ensuring that no one reads them.

1. The English dictionary defines liberty and freedom in very similar ways and typically as immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority, freedom of choice meaning freedom to chose ones occupation, liberty of opinion, liberty of worship and liberty of thoughts and feelings. I suppose underpinning these idea is that we exist in a condition to all of the above without externally imposed restraints. In contrast, freedom does not mean I think that we can think, and say and do anything without restraint or concern for others; and indeed we have a word for that called anarchy.

2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:

The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.

In Saudi Arabia or Iran for examples you cannot freely import and distribute Bibles or a list of other books.

Wikipedia was supposed to give us all freedom but like many other innovations on the web they are increasingly being taken over by a small number of very large corporations or manipulated by governments.

3. Thomas Paine in his book 'On Liberty' had I think the right idea and that was that liberty is only guarded when the people can set limits to the power rulers or governments are able to exercise over its peoples. This was done in two ways:

Granting certain immunities or you can say political rights and it would be a breach of the duty for the ruler or government to infringe and do do so would justify resistance and rebellion.

Secondly, establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community or or body of some sort was required.

Western Governments for the most part long ago adopted democracy as the best mode for setting limits and creating constitutional checks and of course the separation of church and state.

4. Finally, in this first post, I mention theocracies such as Iran or Saudi Arabia where one supposes limits are set by God. However, there does not seem to be any compelling evidence that theocracies such as these work any better than democracies or anything else and history seems to show them often to be despotic and averse to basic freedoms and because they always claim God is on their side almost totally intolerant to dissent. This does not mean that liberal democracies cannot be intolerant but at least its citizens can voice an opinion and its rulers cannot claim any kind of God given infallibility.

The evidence that theocracies work is the government of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and his next 4 followers. The evidence that if theocracy of Saudi is not working, its because its not really an Islamic theocracy and a dictator King is a ruler which actually is not from Islam. Its time to stop generalizing Islamic theocracy with dictatorship of a King.

Talking of liberty, I am not sure if humans can ever be free. They are slaves to biochemicals for living. In the same way, Islamic government has the right to ensure that books such as the NT and the God Delusion do not get spread in its localities to laymen people. At the same time, its upon the Muslim scholars to review these books and write critiques on an international arena.

[Asiyah3]

May I ask what does this all have to do with Islam? Maybe I was expecting this thread to be about the liberty that Islam gives... (just wanting a clear pic)

[جوري]

2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:

The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.

I have lived in Saudi Arabia for four years. Our neighbors were Lebanese maronite christians with a bible and santa clause and the works, so I have no idea where you get the idea that you 'get burned' for having a bible..
however, there is no room for proselytizing in KSA and how I admire them for it.. I can't stand christian missionaries and their smarmy style:

Media Tags are no longer supported

Frankly I don't think that is acceptable anywhere not just KSA.. btw, how is proselytizing to Christianity working in the west? I'd start selling the man/god shbeal here before I expand into other regions..

all the best

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hugo]

May I ask what does this all have to do with Islam? Maybe I was expecting this thread to be about the liberty that Islam gives... (just wanting a clear pic)

Please be aware that in my first post I was not taking sides but simply outlining some ideas for open discussion so we have some context for the thread.

However, this is a useful question and so I offer this clarification. It has to do with Islam because one cannot assume that because a country is Muslim it necessarily guarantees the freedoms discussed in my first post. Indeed we have seen from post number 2 that it is suggested as being at least questionable whether Saudi Arabia is anything more than a dictatorship - well that is how I understand Wa7abiScientist's post?

It maybe that in your eyes Islam gives liberty but I suppose I would say that liberty has nevertheless to be protected so whether we are Muslim or not we have to be ever vigilant for the trouble is that we might not want to speak out about an abuse of liberty because someone is a Muslim or the country is Muslim or because it might brings shame on Islam.

[جوري]

I find no shame in stopping missionaries.. I find all the shame in the missionaries who go into areas say "Haiti' and kidnap children for God knows what purposes and put it under the banner of goodness and righteousness:

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=378331

frankly I find them creepy and I think any sovereign nation has a right to protect its citizens against these human predators .. when there is a threat it should be warded, there is no room to call it freedom or whatever else.

If creeps like that were coming to my home and after my children I'd take the first weapon I can find and blow their heads off!

[Hugo]

I have lived in Saudi Arabia for four years. Our neighbors were Lebanese maronite christians with a bible and santa clause and the works, so I have no idea where you get the idea that you 'get burned' for having a bible..

I have asked that you keep to the point, nowhere in my post do I suggest that people get burned in Saudi Arabia for having a Bible, so please read the post which clearly states that people were burned for having NTs in the inquisition and in England SEVERAL centuries ago.

[CosmicPathos]

@Hugo: Saudi Arabia regulates and censors its internet. I do not see this is as restricting liberty. I actually value such activities and would help the department at King Saud uni to censor sites which they are not aware of. If you have problem with such attitudes, well, dont live in Saudi.

You might not consider this liberty, but this is liberty for us. Liberating people from evil ideas by stopping their access to such material. Who gave the government the right to do so? Technically, Islamic Ameer has the rights to censor infiltration of kufr ideas into dar ul islam.

[Asiyah3]

Please be aware that in my first post I was not taking sides but simply outlining some ideas for open discussion so we have some context for the thread.

I never assumed you did :)

However, this is a useful question and so I offer this clarification. It has to do with Islam because one cannot assume that because a country is Muslim it necessarily guarantees the freedoms discussed in my first post.

Sure, but Islam is a religion and I suppose this doesn't have to do with religion, does it?

It maybe that in your eyes Islam gives liberty

Islam definitely does guarantee the freedoms discussed in your first post.

but I suppose I would say that liberty has nevertheless to be protected so whether we are Muslim or not we have to be ever vigilant

I agree

for the trouble is that we might not want to speak out about an abuse of liberty because someone is a Muslim or the country is Muslim or because it might brings shame on Islam.

No wonder... because after something is heard being done by a muslim or in a muslim environment people connect it with Islam/muslims directly... unfortunately.

[Hugo]

The evidence that theocracies work is the government of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and his next 4 followers. The evidence that if theocracy of Saudi is not working, its because its not really an Islamic theocracy and a dictator King is a ruler which actually is not from Islam. Its time to stop generalizing Islamic theocracy with dictatorship of a King.

This might be true but it was a nascent and small community and cannot necessarily be properly compared to a modern nation state so there is no good reason to think that what worked then will work now - least that is how I see it. One might point out also that it was not long before someone was assassinated was it? But the issue for this thread is was that nascent community one in which freedom was encouraged and exercised?

Talking of liberty, I am not sure if humans can ever be free. They are slaves to biochemicals for living. In the same way, Islamic government has the right to ensure that books such as the NT and the God Delusion do not get spread in its localities to laymen people. At the same time, its upon the Muslim scholars to review these books and write critiques on an international arena.

Freedom always has limits and that is part of its definition and as you say, we all have to eat, sleep and eventually die.

But your point about 'rights' to impose let's call it censorship is an intolerant position that denies information and knowledge and assumes that only the 'scholars' knows how to deal with it. Why I ask do you want to deny access, are you afraid of these books, afraid that the 'layman' will discover truth for themselves? How would you react I wonder if I suggested banning the Qu'ran?

The trouble with truth is that it is, often is, uncomfortable because it can challenge our deepest beliefs. Knowledge it seems in your eyes is a terrible and dangerous thing except for the few because once you have it there is no going back and if you personally want to not bother with these books that is fine but I find it sad not to say objectionable that you want and would stop others reading them and your designation 'laymen' seems to imply that you have no high opinion of their intelligence. If that is the Islamic position then it is I think against liberty and is tantamount to an admission that Islam cannot stand unless it suppresses knowledge. You might like to consider what Karl Popper said in 1943

For those who have eaten of the tree of knowledge, paradise is lost. The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the Inquisition, at the secret police, and at a romanticised gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human

.

[Lynx]

After discussions with the moderators I am proposing a new thread with the perhaps provocative title 'Liberty and Islam'. In keeping with my usual practise I will begin with a general discussion of what liberty or we can say freedom might mean. Please comment or add your own ideas BUT please keep postings:

• On topic
• No more that about one screen full at a time.
• With a font size to about 12
• Free of inserts that take several pages thus ensuring that no one reads them.

1. The English dictionary defines liberty and freedom in very similar ways and typically as immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority, freedom of choice meaning freedom to chose ones occupation, liberty of opinion, liberty of worship and liberty of thoughts and feelings. I suppose underpinning these idea is that we exist in a condition to all of the above without externally imposed restraints. In contrast, freedom does not mean I think that we can think, and say and do anything without restraint or concern for others; and indeed we have a word for that called anarchy.

2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:

The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.

In Saudi Arabia or Iran for examples you cannot freely import and distribute Bibles or a list of other books.

Wikipedia was supposed to give us all freedom but like many other innovations on the web they are increasingly being taken over by a small number of very large corporations or manipulated by governments.

3. Thomas Paine in his book 'On Liberty' had I think the right idea and that was that liberty is only guarded when the people can set limits to the power rulers or governments are able to exercise over its peoples. This was done in two ways:

Granting certain immunities or you can say political rights and it would be a breach of the duty for the ruler or government to infringe and do do so would justify resistance and rebellion.

Secondly, establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community or or body of some sort was required.

Western Governments for the most part long ago adopted democracy as the best mode for setting limits and creating constitutional checks and of course the separation of church and state.

4. Finally, in this first post, I mention theocracies such as Iran or Saudi Arabia where one supposes limits are set by God. However, there does not seem to be any compelling evidence that theocracies such as these work any better than democracies or anything else and history seems to show them often to be despotic and averse to basic freedoms and because they always claim God is on their side almost totally intolerant to dissent. This does not mean that liberal democracies cannot be intolerant but at least its citizens can voice an opinion and its rulers cannot claim any kind of God given infallibility.

Plato had the right idea when he said it's foolish to give the masses power to influence Government but that's besides the point!

Islam is not based on liberty. Slavery is legal in Islam and there is no freedom of expression. You cannot dress in whatever way you want. This not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly academic freedom being limited is a BAD thing.

[Hugo]

Islam definitely does guarantee the freedoms discussed in your first post.

We shall come to this many times in this thread but in view of what you said here what is your position on banning the books cited in an earlier post namely the NT and The God Delusion. Would you, would Islam guarantee my freedom to read them?

[Hugo]

@Hugo: Saudi Arabia regulates and censors its internet. I do not see this is as restricting liberty. I actually value such activities and would help the department at King Saud uni to censor sites which they are not aware of. If you have problem with such attitudes, well, dont live in Saudi.

You might not consider this liberty, but this is liberty for us. Liberating people from evil ideas by stopping their access to such material. Who gave the government the right to do so? Technically, Islamic Ameer has the rights to censor infiltration of kufr ideas into dar ul islam.

I think I see your point and some sites such a pornographic or those advocating violence I think I would support a ban. But this thread is not about where I might or might not live its about I think principles of liberty.

Censoring the internet is probably a losing battle and I would advocate learning not banning as a way forward. There is no more certain way to ensure that a book gets circulated and read than to ban it. Take 'My Uncle Napoleon' written by an Iranian and promptly banned after the revolution but now it is said to be in every Iranian's home and has sold huge numbers in the West and is easily the most popular modern book in Iran inn the world - its sin? it pokes fun at pomposity.

Why do people have to be protected from ideas YOU see as bad as if the average Muslim is some kind of educational and intellectual idiot. For example, you said I think ban the NT at least entering Saudi yet what is wrong with the following extract, what pernicious kufr evil could possible come from it?

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

[Asiyah3]

We shall come to this many times in this thread but in view of what you said here what is your position on banning the books cited in an earlier post namely the NT and The God Delusion. Would you, would Islam guarantee my freedom to read them?

If a person wants to read the NT/The God Delusion then he should be free to do so. Islam undoubtably gives the freedom to believe and act the way one wishes. There are countless verses of the Qur'aan that state this. So absolutely yes.


“And say: “The truth is from your Lord.” Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” [al-Kahf 18:29]


“Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful” [al-Insaan 76:3]

“So, whosoever wills, let him seek a place with (or a way to) His Lord (by obeying Him in this worldly life)!” [al-Naba’ 78:39]


“Among you are some that desire this world and some that desire the Hereafter” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:152]

[جوري]

Certainly academic freedom being limited is a BAD thing.

And we see a wonderful example of that when Pope Alexander IV banned the philosophy books of Ibn Rushd claiming them incompatible with religious beliefs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iIj...um=1&ct=result

oh wait, that is christianity again, incompatible with science and incompatible with freedom.. curious world indeed.. turned Topsy turvy as more and more ignorant with keyboards run amok :hmm:

[Asiyah3]

Plato had the right idea when he said it's foolish to give the masses power to influence Government but that's besides the point!

Islam is not based on liberty. Slavery is legal in Islam and there is no freedom of expression. You cannot dress in whatever way you want. This not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly academic freedom being limited is a BAD thing.

Could you please not hijack the thread? I hope to have a respectful discussion with the other members such as Hugo and not a discussion about your speculation or conclution/stereotypes. Please don't take it in a bad way :)

[Lynx]

And we see a wonderful example of that when Pope Alexander IV banned the philosophy books of Ibn Rushd claiming them incompatible with religious beliefs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iIj...um=1&ct=result

oh wait, that is christianity again, incompatible with science and incompatible with freedom.. curious world indeed.. turned Topsy turvy as more and more ignorant with keyboards run amok :hmm:

Yep, it's always sad when a thinker is silenced or his work is censored. Especially someone with Ibn Rushd's caliber. Thankfully, Europe's insanity hadn't stopped the Muslims from preserving great works such as ibn sina's and ibn Rushd's, etc. !

[Lynx]

Could you please not hijack the thread? I hope to have a respectful discussion with the other members such as Hugo and not a discussion about your speculation or conclution/stereotypes. Please don't take it in a bad way :)

But my post is entirely about liberty and Islam. I said Islam isn't founded upon liberty in the sense that democratic western countries are and that this is not necessarily a bad thing :s

[جوري]

But my post is entirely about liberty and Islam. I said Islam isn't founded upon liberty in the sense that democratic western countries are and that this is not necessarily a bad thing :s

western liberty, freedom & democracy can only be demonstrated in full effect only if you are in total agreement with western ideals. of course if you oppose them you are hunted down like a dog and silenced by the best barrage fire the modern world can offer... It is a funny thing.. liberty and democracy should denote that your tolerance doesn't apply only to those who share your values and, further, conceive them the way you do, for you will be making mockery of tolerance & freedom, which is by definition readiness to coexist peacefully with those who do not share your values.

Thus in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims continue to live peacefully among Muslims.

A large excerpt of the above is written by a Muslim philosopher and professor currently haunted and labeled by the west as a 'terrorist wahabi' :D

curious world!

all the best

[Lynx]

western liberty, freedom & democracy can only be demonstrated in full effect only if you are in total agreement with western ideals. of course if you oppose them you are hunted down like a dog and silenced by the best barrage fire the modern world can offer... It is a funny thing.. liberty and democracy should denote that your tolerance doesn't apply only to those who share your values and, further, conceive them the way you do, for you will be making mockery of tolerance & freedom, which is by definition readiness to coexist peacefully with those who do not share your values.

Thus in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims continue to live peacefully among Muslims.

A large excerpt of the above is written by a Muslim philosopher and professor currently haunted and labeled by the west as a 'terrorist wahabi' :D

curious world!

all the best

I agree with almost everything you said there. Another example of Western liberal democratic values being enforced on people who did share that belief is the persecution of communist-types during the cold war era. History tells us that people were really persecuted for being sympathetic with the Marxist cause. As cliche as it may be, Muslims are the new 'reds' of this time period and it's probably natural for there always to be a group that is labelled as 'dangerous' (before the commies it was the Japs, etc..). In any case I guess a question I'd ask you is if you think there should be academic dissent from Islam or critiques of it for the sake of determining truth (since the dissenters are obviously not Muslim or critical types).

Edit: something i forgot: Proper and true democratic liberalism Is stil possible though it just hasn't been applied properly yet. But I mean IT IS possible that a liberal system free from hypocricies like the ones we both brought up might arise. Though I would never in a 100 years support a John Stuart Mill type of state where it is ideally liberal.

[جوري]

In any case I guess a question I'd ask you is if you think there should be academic dissent from Islam or critiques of it for the sake of determining truth (since the dissenters are obviously not Muslim or critical types).

.

I don't see how non-Muslims can critique anything in Islam save its political aspects? All the attempts made (that I am familiar with) are absurdly deficient and at times down right incorrect. Plus when it comes to spirituality and worship there is really no room for opinion especially as contrasted to what exists, and even as an outsider the more convoluted the religion the less appealing it is but I don't wish to get into the dynamics of that for the purposes of this thread.. The best scholars to discuss Islam as a religion not a political system are its scholars.. it is the same principle that you should employ when reading a scientific journal. Do you take lay man's critique say for argument' sake in determining whether or not MMR is linked to autism. Do you go for the hysteria of a woman like jenny mccarthy who has an autistic kid, or do you go for the research and publication of the institution that is the American pediatric association? To me the choice is clear.. obviously a popular personality will have a wide following and a sympathetic one for obvious reasons.. but that isn't the rational approach!

Now, the political aspects of Islam can be contrasted and critiqued but in the long run it wouldn't change things an iota. A perfect complete divine system is established whether or not people are able to correctly implement it, and I think in my own mind that it is difficult to critique a system when yours is such a miserable failure. People are bound to not be unanimously in agreement of a system but even 'democracy' isn't aimed at pleasing all people unanimously. To digress a moment it is interesting to note for instance that Hamas winning (democratically) by a landslide has been much fought and criticized by the west for one reason and one alone, again, it isn't about democracy or freedom or liberalism.. it is about kowtowing and being in total agreement with a few satanists that run the world or else..

a system should be above all about justice and equality (though equality doesn't denote sameness) not about cute little meaningless banners like freedom fries, with us or against it, democracy, liberalism and Jesus love!

all the best

[Lynx]

I don't see how non-Muslims can critique anything in Islam save its political aspects? All the attempts made (that I am familiar with) are absurdly deficient and at times down right incorrect. Plus when it comes to spirituality and worship there is really no room for opinion especially as contrasted to what exists, and even as an outsider the more convoluted the religion the less appealing it is but I don't wish to get into the dynamics of that for the purposes of this thread.. The best scholars to discuss Islam as a religion not a political system are its scholars.. it is the same principle that you should employ when reading a scientific journal. Do you take lay man's critique say for argument' sake in determining whether or not MMR is linked to autism. Do you go for the hysteria of a woman like jenny mccarthy who has an autistic kid, or do you go for the research and publication of the institution that is the American pediatric association? To me the choice is clear.. obviously a popular personality will have a wide following and a sympathetic one for obvious reasons.. but that isn't the rational approach!

Now, the political aspects of Islam can be contrasted and critiqued but in the long run it wouldn't change things an iota. A perfect complete divine system is established whether or not people are able to correctly implement it, and I think in my own mind that it is difficult to critique a system when yours is such a miserable failure. People are bound to not be unanimously in agreement of a system but even 'democracy' isn't aimed at pleasing all people unanimously. To digress a moment it is interesting to note for instance that Hamas winning (democratically) by a landslide has been much fought and criticized by the west for one reason and one alone, again, it isn't about democracy or freedom or liberalism.. it is about kowtowing and being in total agreement with a few satanists that run the world or else..

a system should be above all about justice and equality (though equality doesn't denote sameness) not about cute little meaningless banners like freedom fries, with us or against it, democracy, liberalism and Jesus love!

all the best

Oh, I think I should have wrote "do you think it should be allowed to critique" Islam or in other words, do you think there should be legal protection for people who openly criticize Islam? I don't mean hate-mongers but intellectual argumentation about Islam whether in the form of theological or philosophical or scientific debates. But it doesn't matter as far as I remember Islamic History, there has always been a culture of academia where the intellectuals would frequently debate one another so I suppose having that again wouldn't be impossible. And what do you mean my system has failed miserably? What's my system? I don't remember sharing ;o

[جوري]

Oh, I think I should have wrote "do you think it should be allowed to critique" Islam or in other words, do you think there should be legal protection for people who openly criticize Islam? I don't mean hate-mongers but intellectual argumentation about Islam whether in the form of theological or philosophical or scientific debates. But it doesn't matter as far as I remember Islamic History, there has always been a culture of academia where the intellectuals would frequently debate one another so I suppose having that again wouldn't be impossible. And what do you mean my system has failed miserably? What's my system? I don't remember sharing ;o

People have been critiquing Islam since its inception, I don't see how it can stop? I mean I personally would like to google Islam without finding a laundry list of vitriolic sites but there is nothing I can do to help the matter and much of it is false.
I think a person needs to outline why they are critiquing something before they embark on that path and more often than not there is no rational reason behind said criticism rather a personal agenda.
During the time Maimondes moved back to north Africa after persecution and expulsion from Spain he wrote a book entitled 'in mockery of the sons of Ishmael' now if Islam had censorship not only would he not be allowed to not write at all but given that he is biting the very hand that fed him and took him in it would have been an off with his head moment.. instead a Muslim scholar wrote an antithetical entitled book 'in praise of the sons of Ishmael' so you catch my drift.. all that is in exchanged here is in light of the modern Muslim world, which is anything but modern and anything but Islamic.

By 'you' I mean western system in general not you as an individual, I am not sure how I could have phrased it better..


all the best

[Lynx]

People have been critiquing Islam since its inception, I don't see how it can stop? I mean I personally would like to google Islam without finding a laundry list of vitriolic sites but there is nothing I can do to help the matter and much of it is false.
I think a person needs to outline why they are critiquing something before they embark on that path and more often than not there is no rational reason behind said criticism rather a personal agenda.
During the time Maimondes moved back to north Africa after persecution and expulsion from Spain he wrote a book entitled 'in mockery of the sons of Ishmael' now if Islam had censorship not only would he not be allowed to not write at all but given that he is biting the very hand that fed him and took him in it would have been an off with his head moment.. instead a Muslim scholar wrote an antithetical entitled book 'in praise of the sons of Ishmael' so you catch my drift.. all that is in exchanged here is in light of the modern Muslim world, which is anything but modern and anything but Islamic.

By 'you' I mean western system in general not you as an individual, I am not sure how I could have phrased it better..


all the best

Well I am using critique in the strict sense of academic critique not just any old person's attack on any particular set of beliefs. But I take your point nevertheless and I do agree life would be a lot better of all disagreement took place in a setting similar to the famous painting 'School of Athens'. But now I am just dreaming :)

[CosmicPathos]

If a person wants to read the NT/The God Delusion then he should be free to do so. Islam undoubtably gives the freedom to believe and act the way one wishes. There are countless verses of the Qur'aan that state this. So absolutely yes.


“And say: “The truth is from your Lord.” Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” [al-Kahf 18:29]


“Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful” [al-Insaan 76:3]

“So, whosoever wills, let him seek a place with (or a way to) His Lord (by obeying Him in this worldly life)!” [al-Naba’ 78:39]


“Among you are some that desire this world and some that desire the Hereafter” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:152]

We have to be careful with what we write here because we are answerable to Allah. An Islamic emirate cannot allow public selling of such books in its bookstores. Its tantamount to accepting the beliefs in these books. Hugo can read them but he cannot buy such books in Islamic state. And if he is found traveling in Islamic emirate with those books in public, he can be punished. Can you tell me where does Allah (swt) allow the Ameer to accept books to be spread in his khilafa which abuse Allah? No. Atheistic books are not supposed to be publicly sold in Islamic Khilafa. If Hugo feels bad that he does not have such freedom, we can kindly ask him to leave and stop living in such a state which infiltrates on his personal freedoms.

[Skavau]

@Hugo: Saudi Arabia regulates and censors its internet. I do not see this is as restricting liberty. I actually value such activities and would help the department at King Saud uni to censor sites which they are not aware of. If you have problem with such attitudes, well, dont live in Saudi.

You might not consider this liberty, but this is liberty for us. Liberating people from evil ideas by stopping their access to such material. Who gave the government the right to do so? Technically, Islamic Ameer has the rights to censor infiltration of kufr ideas into dar ul islam.

This is a strangely subjective statement to make for a Muslim. I did not think moral objectivists (assuming you are one) would take on board the saying "when in rome, do as the romans do".

As far as I understand, acting with the intention of censorship, repression, control and prohibitation is the underpinning on what it is to be anti-liberty. To be against allowing others to consider their own destiny.

[Skavau]

No wonder... because after something is heard being done by a muslim or in a muslim environment people connect it with Islam/muslims directly... unfortunately.

Well, why wouldn't people?

If someone, in a Muslim country claims to do something on behalf of and for Islam that results in the repression of others - why would the average person not connect it to it? I see in other threads here and on other websites, that any horrific crime or abuse in any secular nation is considered some form of evidence of the depravity and decline of secular societies - well the reverse is true.

[Skavau]

oh wait, that is christianity again, incompatible with science and incompatible with freedom.. curious world indeed.. turned Topsy turvy as more and more ignorant with keyboards run amok

The thread is about Islam and personal liberty. Or rather, what would personal liberty be in an Islamic state. I would much disagree with any rise of the Christian evangelicals in the USA and would celebrate any decline of popular support they might have.

western liberty, freedom & democracy can only be demonstrated in full effect only if you are in total agreement with western ideals. of course if you oppose them you are hunted down like a dog and silenced by the best barrage fire the modern world can offer... It is a funny thing.. liberty and democracy should denote that your tolerance doesn't apply only to those who share your values and, further, conceive them the way you do, for you will be making mockery of tolerance & freedom, which is by definition readiness to coexist peacefully with those who do not share your values.

Firstly, no. By "western liberty, freedom & democracy" I assume you are presumably referring to traditional secular values and human rights (or specifically referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) - and in most instances they are upheld in europe, and indeed when they are not upheld in europe they are often ignored in favour of Islamic pressure. The key and most disgraceful example is the position of Geert Wilders right now.

I don't see how non-Muslims can critique anything in Islam save its political aspects?

Huh?

Do you criticise the metaphysics and literature of Christianity? Yes, I've seen you do it. Do you criticise the logic of atheists? Yes, I've seen you do it. Why do you imagine it is impossible to criticise a very large and precise world view that makes very many big, demanding and specific claims for itself. Not only does Islam claim to be true, but its adherents often insist everyone observe it in some sense (at the very least to propose some specific level of 'respect').

The best scholars to discuss Islam as a religion not a political system are its scholars.. it is the same principle that you should employ when reading a scientific journal. Do you take lay man's critique say for argument' sake in determining whether or not MMR is linked to autism. Do you go for the hysteria of a woman like jenny mccarthy who has an autistic kid, or do you go for the research and publication of the institution that is the American pediatric association? To me the choice is clear.. obviously a popular personality will have a wide following and a sympathetic one for obvious reasons.. but that isn't the rational approach!

This is not the thread to point out the hilarious irony.

But nonetheless, people do go to scholars on this. People do read Islamic history to observe what Islam contends that its political setup is. They then criticise it based on that. What exactly do you imagine that the critics of a politicised Islam base their contention on? It is to do with an understanding of what that could involve and a desire to see it not happen.

Now, the political aspects of Islam can be contrasted and critiqued but in the long run it wouldn't change things an iota. A perfect complete divine system is established whether or not people are able to correctly implement it, and I think in my own mind that it is difficult to critique a system when yours is such a miserable failure.

Ah, but like you I already have my explanation avaliable! I am now only going to contend that Secular Democracy exists in hypotheticals and remains entirely a concept. I could perhaps pick the rosiest european nation from its rosiest year and have that as the model for secular democracy, dispelling all the other nations as not true establishments for it, but purely puppet states for some other objective.

Now, I will say from this that you have no grounds to criticise Secular Democracy because no state that exists proposes it properly. We now argue from concepts. None of our ideas have any proficiency in reality because both of us argue that it does not exist in reality.

So what now? How is this a meaningful argument? No, the reality is that Islam is effectively what I can observe. It doesn't matter whether some of the systems do not implement Islam as all would insist upon it, or only observe it some of the time for some its people depending on some of its foreign entanglements. It is a state consisting of Muslims and claims to be Islamic. All you are doing by claiming that it is divine, and is ultimate irrespective of our failures to understand it so - is to propose an unchartered concept. It does not exist. I can only criticise its concepts.

People have been critiquing Islam since its inception, I don't see how it can stop? I mean I personally would like to google Islam without finding a laundry list of vitriolic sites but there is nothing I can do to help the matter and much of it is false.
I think a person needs to outline why they are critiquing something before they embark on that path and more often than not there is no rational reason behind said criticism rather a personal agenda.

Christianity gets the exact same treatment, for similar reasons. When you understand why you criticise Christianity you might understand why others criticise Islam.

[Asiyah3]

We have to be careful with what we write here because we are answerable to Allah. An Islamic emirate cannot allow public selling of such books in its bookstores. Its tantamount to accepting the beliefs in these books. Hugo can read them but he cannot buy such books in Islamic state. And if he is found traveling in Islamic emirate with those books in public, he can be punished. Can you tell me where does Allah (swt) allow the Ameer to accept books to be spread in his khilafa which abuse Allah? No. Atheistic books are not supposed to be publicly sold in Islamic Khilafa. If Hugo feels bad that he does not have such freedom, we can kindly ask him to leave and stop living in such a state which infiltrates on his personal freedoms.

I didn't speak about an Islamic emirate, I never said that if someone enters my house then he's allowed to fill the shelf with the NT. I never said that only because a man is free to engage in same-sex-relationships that we should encourage/accept/allow or legalize it to be spread. JazakalLah.

[Asiyah3]

Well, why wouldn't people?

If someone, in a Muslim country claims to do something on behalf of and for Islam that results in the repression of others - why would the average person not connect it to it? I see in other threads here and on other websites, that any horrific crime or abuse in any secular nation is considered some form of evidence of the depravity and decline of secular societies - well the reverse is true.

Really? Only because in Finland there have been few school massacres by young men have we muslims here connected it to Finnish youth? Only because of the cases of a man raping his young daughter and imprisoning her for over twenty years have we connected it to westerners? Only because of the several cases of drunkmen/women assaulting their children have we connected it to the inhabitants of the community? Only an example among the uncounted cases. Saying some cases are common and widespread on a specific area is a whole different case.

[siam]

newbie here, interesting topic.......

In Islam, I think freedoms have to be balanced by responsibility.

If people have the freedom to choose their government, then with it comes the responsibility of holding that government accountable for the welfare of the people.

If people have the freedom to express/criticise, then they also have the responsibility of avoiding defamation/slander....(and hate, intolerance)

If a society can freely enact laws,then they also have a responsibility to ensure that these laws reflect the values of justice, tempered with mercy of that society.

If an individual has the freedom to choose a religion, then they also have the responsibilty to seek knowledge within that religious tradition so as to fully adhere to its principles.

I believe that our freedom of choice is a "God-given" right and other human beings do not have the right to curtail it PROVIDED that this freedom is used with responsibility (and wisdom).
(----abuse of freedom that harms others must be dealt with appropirately by the justice system.)

Just my opinion........

[aamirsaab]

Plato had the right idea when he said it's foolish to give the masses power to influence Government but that's besides the point!

Islam is not based on liberty.

Right of women to VOTE:
Arab world: 1400 years ago
Western world: 500

1 down, 2 to go.

Slavery is legal in Islam

Only so they could be freed - slavery wasn't an obligation in Islam. You never miss a chance at a potshot, do ya.

and there is no freedom of expression.

I'm sorry, what? You do realise how Islam came about right? And how the persecution of muslims was curtailment of freedom of speech?

3 strikes. Nuuuuuuuu batta.

You cannot dress in whatever way you want. This not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly academic freedom being limited is a BAD thing.

Indeed.

[Hugo]

And we see a wonderful example of that when Pope Alexander IV banned the philosophy books of Ibn Rushd claiming them incompatible with religious beliefs.

Let's be even-handed here, and I am sure you know that Ibn Rushd was made to sit at the door of the Mosque in Cordoba so that the righteous could spit on him as they entered. He was later exiled to Lucena, a Jewish village outside of Cordoba, his writings were banned and his books burned. This period of disgrace did not last long, however, and Ibn Rushd returned to Cordoba two years later, but died the following year. Doubts about Ibn Rushd’s orthodoxy persisted, but as Islamic interest in his philosophy waned, his writings found new audiences in the Christian and Jewish worlds.

Notwithstanding your biased view Abu'l-Walid Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), stands out as a towering figure in the history of Arab-Islamic thought, as well as that of West-European philosophy and theology. In the Islamic world, he played a decisive role in the defence of Greek philosophy against the onslaughts of the Ash'arite theologians (Mutakallimun), led by al-Ghazali (d. 1111), and the rehabilitation of Aristotle.

A common theme in his writings is that there is no incompatibility between religion and philosophy when both are properly understood. His contributions to philosophy took many forms, ranging from his detailed commentaries on Aristotle, his defence of philosophy against the attacks of those who condemned it as contrary to Islam and his construction of a form of Aristotelianism which cleansed it, as far as was possible at the time, of Neoplatonic influences. If you want to know about liberty and freedom in thought you could do no better than read Ibn Rushd. Just as a taster, here is one of his most famous and profound saying against literalism in Islam and indeed anywhere.

If the plain and literal meaning of the words don't make sense then the author must have intended something else.

He also subscribed to the Jewish notion in this context where the ideas are very very similar though I like Rushd because he tells you in effects what to do when a literal reading implies nonsense:

To go from the text of scripture to application with interpretation is itself heresy.

[Hugo]

Only so they could be freed - slavery wasn't an obligation in Islam. You never miss a chance at a potshot, do ya.

Can you explain this as you seem to be saying that Islam enslaves people so they can then be freed? I cannot see any logic in making someone a slave in order to free him/her?

Can you be precise here, is it your view that slavery is acceptable?

[Hugo]

newbie here, interesting topic.......

In Islam, I think freedoms have to be balanced by responsibility. If people have the freedom to choose their government, then with it comes the responsibility of holding that government accountable for the welfare of the people.

If people have the freedom to express/criticise, then they also have the responsibility of avoiding defamation/slander....(and hate, intolerance)

If a society can freely enact laws,then they also have a responsibility to ensure that these laws reflect the values of justice, tempered with mercy of that society. If an individual has the freedom to choose a religion, then they also have the responsibilty to seek knowledge within that religious tradition so as to fully adhere to its principles.

I believe that our freedom of choice is a "God-given" right and other human beings do not have the right to curtail it PROVIDED that this freedom is used with responsibility (and wisdom).
(----abuse of freedom that harms others must be dealt with appropirately by the justice system.)

In find myself agreeing with almost all of this and indeed some of what you describe is very like that discussed in my first post about Thomas Paine. But yes all of us have a duty to act responsibly and particularly with regard to precious freedoms.

Of course there is a place for law here but law alone cannot make us into good citizens and that needs things like love, care, sharing etc.

[Hugo]

Really? Only because in Finland there have been few school massacres by young men have we muslims here connected it to Finnish youth? Only because of the cases of a man raping his young daughter and imprisoning her for over twenty years have we connected it to westerners? Only because of the several cases of drunkmen/women assaulting their children have we connected it to the inhabitants of the community? Only an example among the uncounted cases. Saying some cases are common and widespread on a specific area is a whole different case.

I think this is a very difficult area and to link it to culture or a country or Western is unwise if not hopelessly wrong. Sadly, it is all to easy to pick out incidents to make a point but it inevitably becomes biased because often it is accompanies by a tacit assumption that your culture is in some way better.

Yes, in the west there have been very very nasty incidents but it cannot have escaped any ones notice that almost daily in say Iraq pilgrims are bombed and in the UK there are large numbers of Muslim child molesters in prison as well as child Molesters of other backgrounds.

The sin, the wickedness is in all of us and there are no exception due to race or religion and all of us as someone said in an earlier post must take responsibility for our own lives. As soon as you start believing that evil things cannot happen in your home, your community, your church, your Mosque or your society you have started on a very very slippery slope because it becomes all to easy to turn a blind eye or blame someone or something else.

[Hugo]

Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
We have to be careful with what we write here because we are answerable to Allah. An Islamic emirate cannot allow public selling of such books in its bookstores. Its tantamount to accepting the beliefs in these books. Hugo can read them but he cannot buy such books in Islamic state. And if he is found traveling in Islamic emirate with those books in public, he can be punished. Can you tell me where does Allah (swt) allow the Ameer to accept books to be spread in his khilafa which abuse Allah? No. Atheistic books are not supposed to be publicly sold in Islamic Khilafa. If Hugo feels bad that he does not have such freedom, we can kindly ask him to leave and stop living in such a state which infiltrates on his personal freedoms.

If Wa7abiScientist feels bad about living in a Western culture where all such books are freely available and anyone can carry and read them anywhere then he should leave and go where he feels more secure.

Do you see the point? In fact you are condemning Muslims to be perpetually ignorant and forcing them to see the world and these books through a grid of your making. No one in contrast forces them to read books do they? If Islam cannot stand up to knowledge unless it is filtered, because that is what your view implies then it has no solidity and faith become a house of cards, destroyed with the lightest puff. Why is it that you have such little faith in your fellow believers rational powers?

[Hugo]

If a person wants to read the NT/The God Delusion then he should be free to do so. Islam undoubtably gives the freedom to believe and act the way one wishes. There are countless verses of the Qur'aan that state this. So absolutely yes.

“And say: “The truth is from your Lord.” Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” [al-Kahf 18:29]

An interesting collection of verses but after looking them up to see the context some further questions arose in my mind. In the case above we have

Dawood - Say: 'This is the truth from your Lord. Let him who will, believe in it, and him who will deny it.' For the wrongdoers We have prepared a fire which will encompass them like walls of a pavilion. When they cry out for help they shall be showered with water as hot as molten brass, which will scald their faces, evil shall be their drink, evil shall be their resting place.

So there is an element of fear here that if you go off the path so to speak terrible punishments awaits you so perhaps in the mind of Muslims there is a fear that they may somehow be distracted from the path. I well remember when I first ventured away from the Bible and looked say at the Qu'ran or communism that I was fearful - would my faith be challenged, would I give up the Bible and embrace Islam, would I just give up on faith and so on.

But I soon realised that ANY book more or less could be a challenge to what I held to be truth so the fear was essentially irrational and none of those things happened but I have learned a great deal along the way which I would never have unless I had taken that first fearful step. Simon BLackburn expresses well I think what a thoughtful person should be:

In the intellectual world, toleration is the disposition to fight opinion only with opinion; in other words, to protect freedom of speech, and to confront divergence of opinion with open, critical reflection rather than suppression or force.

So we seem to have a few choices (can you add any more?)

1. Don't read anything
2. Only read what the scholars say is ok
3. Only read filtered versions so we always know what is 'proper' knowledge.
4. Remain fearful of what we discover and sadly there are plenty of people and regimes that would keep you that way.

My own view is that there are obviously bad books out there that advocates hatred or perverse sexual gratification or how to make a Bomb etc. But its education that allows us to deal with and answer questions not banning and burning.

[Asiyah3]

I think this is a very difficult area and to link it to culture or a country or Western is unwise if not hopelessly wrong.

I know. I never said muslims should lower theirselves to some Americans level (=muslim=terrorist/arab=terrorist...)

Sadly, it is all to easy to pick out incidents to make a point but it inevitably becomes biased because often it is accompanies by a tacit assumption that your culture is in some way better.

Works the other way- If something doesn't hold the westerners definition of liberty, justice or equality, then it's oppression on their account. The burka or the men-work&women-household is an evident example and goes saying...

Yes, in the west there have been very very nasty incidents but it cannot have escaped any ones notice that almost daily in say Iraq pilgrims are bombed and in the UK there are large numbers of Muslim child molesters in prison as well as child Molesters of other backgrounds.

Too ridiculous to discuss. My respond was only to Skavau's post "Well, why wouldn't people?" who tried to justify their wrongfully unjudicious and foolish tagging. There are obviously good and bad people everywhere!

[جوري]

For a guy who finds it difficult to engage me, you sure never make yourself scarce!

The thread is about Islam and personal liberty. Or rather, what would personal liberty be in an Islamic state. I would much disagree with any rise of the Christian evangelicals in the USA and would celebrate any decline of popular support they might have.

Indeed, and I have covered how liberty under better Islamic climate surpassed that of any so-called modern day western liberty which is incompatible with anything else save its own brand of self-serving principles!

Firstly, no. By "western liberty, freedom & democracy" I assume you are presumably referring to traditional secular values and human rights (or specifically referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) - and in most instances they are upheld in europe, and indeed when they are not upheld in europe they are often ignored in favour of Islamic pressure. The key and most disgraceful example is the position of Geert Wilders right now.

You are so funny. I like how you bury your head in the sand, requesting that people take off their clothes and not build minarets echoes, killing women for sporting a veil and a barrage of tasteless comments and threats every day in some form geared in its entirety toward Islam and its adherents paints a different reality, perhaps if you weren't so awe struck of terms instead of actions, you too would realize it!

Huh?

Do you criticise the metaphysics and literature of Christianity? Yes, I've seen you do it. Do you criticise the logic of atheists? Yes, I've seen you do it. Why do you imagine it is impossible to criticise a very large and precise world view that makes very many big, demanding and specific claims for itself. Not only does Islam claim to be true, but its adherents often insist everyone observe it in some sense (at the very least to propose some specific level of 'respect').

There is a difference between personal opinion of why something doesn't work 'logically' for you as a person and interpreting exegetical text of others to suit your private agenda. And I believe the example given previously of preferring the quack science of jenny mccarthy over the American pediatric association as an example. If you'd read carefully you could spare us both hordes of unnecessary comments!

This is not the thread to point out the hilarious irony.

But nonetheless, people do go to scholars on this. People do read Islamic history to observe what Islam contends that its political setup is. They then criticise it based on that. What exactly do you imagine that the critics of a politicised Islam base their contention on? It is to do with an understanding of what that could involve and a desire to see it not happen.

see previous comments!

Ah, but like you I already have my explanation avaliable! I am now only going to contend that Secular Democracy exists in hypotheticals and remains entirely a concept. I could perhaps pick the rosiest european nation from its rosiest year and have that as the model for secular democracy, dispelling all the other nations as not true establishments for it, but purely puppet states for some other objective.

Is there a point to this?

Now, I will say from this that you have no grounds to criticise Secular Democracy because no state that exists proposes it properly. We now argue from concepts. None of our ideas have any proficiency in reality because both of us argue that it does not exist in reality.

I criticize what currently exists if you are trying to contrast this with some utopic Islamic state, you have no grounds, the entire of the Muslim world runs by constitutions imposed from the times they were under imperialistic rule.. so again perhaps you can spare us the school boy analysis!

So what now? How is this a meaningful argument? No, the reality is that Islam is effectively what I can observe. It doesn't matter whether some of the systems do not implement Islam as all would insist upon it, or only observe it some of the time for some its people depending on some of its foreign entanglements. It is a state consisting of Muslims and claims to be Islamic. All you are doing by claiming that it is divine, and is ultimate irrespective of our failures to understand it so - is to propose an unchartered concept. It does not exist. I can only criticise its concept

see previous.

Christianity gets the exact same treatment, for similar reasons. When you understand why you criticise Christianity you might understand why others criticise Islam.

I see no comparison between Christianity and Islam they are different as night and day, thus I think your reasons are your own as you like to sweep everything that doesn't fall underneath your atheist broad sweep brush and using the same color!

all the best

[Skavau]

Really? Only because in Finland there have been few school massacres by young men have we muslims here connected it to Finnish youth?

No, I am not saying that everyone does this - I am saying that often, religious groups and in my experience Muslims in particular like to connect what they see as 'increasing' crime rates in secular nations as a consequence of Secularism.

[Skavau]

Indeed, and I have covered how liberty under better Islamic climate surpassed that of any so-called modern day western liberty which is incompatible with anything else save its own brand of self-serving principles!

Rhetoric

You are so funny. I like how you bury your head in the sand, requesting that people take off their clothes and not build minarets echoes, killing women for sporting a veil and a barrage of tasteless comments and threats every day in some form geared in its entirety toward Islam and its adherents paints a different reality, perhaps if you weren't so awe struck of terms instead of actions, you too would realize it!

What are you talking about?

Perhaps you have missed where I said that I disagree with the ban of veils. If you haven't, I shall post the linkfor your information. I also do not support anyone's death for wearing veils either.

I certainly have no issue with minarets, at least in no sense more than any other religious groups building their places.

And could you please point out where I have made threats?

There is a difference between personal opinion of why something doesn't work 'logically' for you as a person and interpreting exegetical text of others to suit your private agenda. And I believe the example given previously of preferring the quack science of jenny mccarthy over the American pediatric association as an example. If you'd read carefully you could spare us both hordes of unnecessary comments!

Okay. I agree there is a difference between someone sporting a confirmation bias and someone with a legitimate issue with an ideology.

So?

Is there a point to this?

Yes. It is the same ridiculous argument that Islamic law only exists conceptually and none of its practices or ideals proposed in these states can be used to make a comment on Sharia Law.

For instance, Europe is currently on a spree of prohibiting the veil - I see that as not only anti-liberty but also anti-secular. Could I then say that the reasons for these laws proposes have nothing to do with Secularism or the ideals that Secularism has proposed?

I could and would not.

I see no comparison between Christianity and Islam they are different as night and day, thus I think your reasons are your own as you like to sweep everything that doesn't fall underneath your atheist broad sweep brush and using the same color!

What broad brush do I use? Could you be more specific?

[Asiyah3]

No, I am not saying that everyone does this - I am saying that often, religious groups and in my experience Muslims in particular like to connect what they see as 'increasing' crime rates in secular nations as a consequence of Secularism

?... Please elaborate.

[Skavau]

?... Please elaborate.

you expressed surprise that perhaps people might connect islamic-motivated (or contended islamic motivated crimes) in an Islamic state as something to do with Islam. The same happens in Secular states with school shootings. Many people see it as a dire consequence of Secularism.

Neither surprises me.

[جوري]

Rhetoric

goes both ways?

What are you talking about?

Perhaps you have missed where I said that I disagree with the ban of veils. If you haven't, I shall post the linkfor your information. I also do not support anyone's death for wearing veils either.

I certainly have no issue with minarets, at least in no sense more than any other religious groups building their places.

And could you please point out where I have made threats?

Are you a representative of western liberal democracy or one insignificant member whose views matter naught? Really try to distinguish the difference so we are not spending half our sessions in support of your ego.

Okay. I agree there is a difference between someone sporting a confirmation bias and someone with a legitimate issue with an ideology.

good

Yes. It is the same ridiculous argument that Islamic law only exists conceptually and none of its practices or ideals proposed in these states can be used to make a comment on Sharia Law.

I never said it existed conceptually, I said it existed once upon a time until the dissolution of the Muslim empire!

For instance, Europe is currently on a spree of prohibiting the veil - I see that as not only anti-liberty but also anti-secular. Could I then say that the reasons for these laws proposes have nothing to do with Secularism or the ideals that Secularism has proposed?

Indeed.. I think the terms and the reality of things are two different principles and in fact that is the way it has always been. In fact your system is built on no more than empty ideals that favor a few, pick any point in history and you'll see that said liberty and democracy was instated only in support of a handful of people and to hell with the rest!

What broad brush do I use? Could you be more specific?

I would but I am not that interested in topics about you!

all the best

[Skavau]

Are you a representative of western liberal democracy or one insignificant member whose views matter naught? Really try to distinguish the difference so we are not spending half our sessions in support of your ego.

Western Liberal Democracy does not say that people who wear the veil ought to be killed. Western Liberal Democracy does not make threats against Muslims.

And by the way, 'Liberal Democracy' is an umbrella term describing many different ideologies. There are different forms of Liberalism and Democracy. You are comparing it to a fixed ideology like Sharia Law, which according to its adherents is unquestionable and infallible.

Indeed.. I think the terms and the reality of things are two different principles and in fact that is the way it has always been. In fact your system is built on no more than empty ideals that favor a few, pick any point in history and you'll see that said liberty and democracy was instated only in support of a handful of people and to hell with the rest!

Do you think that 'liberty' or 'democracy' as concepts exist? Never mind about the alleged corruption you claim exists from historical proponents of the two - do you believe, or accept that concepts such as 'liberty' or 'democracy' can be internally consistent and/or sincere?

[Uthman]

Regarding Islam and slavery (which was mentioned), I'd like to recommend this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...3-slavery.html

[Hugo]

Hugo - Yes, in the west there have been very very nasty incidents but it cannot have escaped any ones notice that almost daily in say Iraq pilgrims are bombed and in the UK there are large numbers of Muslim child molesters in prison as well as child Molesters of other backgrounds.

Too ridiculous to discuss. My respond was only to Skavau's post "Well, why wouldn't people?" who tried to justify their wrongfully unjudicious and foolish tagging. There are obviously good and bad people everywhere

Why is it too ridiculous to discuss as I don't think anything I said is untrue, but my point was that trading incidents proves nothing because we cannot generalise from one incident to a whole society, perhaps that is what you mean.

More often than not when incidents are cited its a way of deflecting criticism as if one wrong can justify others. If one reads Islamic Boards like this one there is rarely an acceptance that ills exist in an Islamic society or if they do it is the fault of imperialism, the west etc. This was aptly put by Al Arif al Akhdar:

There is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besting your society. Its all the fault of the West, of infidels.

Of course the West to a certain extent does the same but at least the West admits to its failings - for example, the crusades were a disgrace but where will you find any Muslim saying the same about Muslim conquests? Part of freedom is being able to face up to the truth especially when it points to failings or it is disgraceful in some way instead of hiding it or blaming it on someone else.

[جوري]

Western Liberal Democracy does not say that people who wear the veil ought to be killed. Western Liberal Democracy does not make threats against Muslims.

And by the way, 'Liberal Democracy' is an umbrella term describing many different ideologies. There are different forms of Liberalism and Democracy. You are comparing it to a fixed ideology like Sharia Law, which according to its adherents is unquestionable and infallible.

western liberal democracy is what is applied and in action currently .... you really are in no position to question or bring into the conversation sharia'a law. You haven't lived under it and thus isn't really a topic for comparison.
That is always your excuse for everything.. when atheists are at fault of heinous mass murders you extricate yourself by alleging all that atheism is, is a lack of belief in God, same token here, 'liberal democracy' is an umbrella of different ideologies. Perhaps you can stop being such a staunch defender of things you can't clearly define then!

Do you think that 'liberty' or 'democracy' as concepts exist? Never mind about the alleged corruption you claim exists from historical proponents of the two - do you believe, or accept that concepts such as 'liberty' or 'democracy' can be internally consistent and/or sincere?

No, I don't!

[siam]

If freedoms are balanced with responsibility, it works the other way around too----that is, our level of responsibility is according to our level of freedom. For example, a child may have less freedoms than an adult, therefore, the child's level of responsibility is also less than that of an adult.

Likewise, the members of those societies that enjoy higher levels of freedom, have a higher level of responsibility. We should keep this in mind when we compare societies. To compare an oppressive society with a free one is to compare apples and oranges.

The greater the oppression, the lesser the liberty, and the greater the liberty, the lesser the oppression. If we hold this to be true, then it is the duty of all individuals to uphold and promote liberty in order to lessen oppression---for the Quran says oppression (and persecution) is worse than slaughter.

Yet, what happens if the members of a society are incapable of the responsibilities of liberty? ...would it not be oppression to force such responsibility on them?

And what about the child?.....Would it be right to enforce the same freedoms and responsibilities on a child as we give an adult?

[Asiyah3]

you expressed surprise that perhaps people might connect islamic-motivated (or contended islamic motivated crimes) in an Islamic state as something to do with Islam. The same happens in Secular states with school shootings. Many people see it as a dire consequence of Secularism.

Neither surprises me.

I never spoke about contended islamic motivated crimes. This is what I wrote:

No wonder... because after something is heard being done by a muslim or in a muslim environment people connect it with Islam/muslims directly... unfortunately.

To say that muslims or some muslims connect school shootings to Secular states (Lol) is very ignorant and incorrect.

[Skavau]

western liberal democracy is what is applied and in action currently .... you really are in no position to question or bring into the conversation sharia'a law.

Yes I accept that there exist states that describe themselves as both 'liberal' and 'democratic'. I also accept that these states do things that can sometimes only be described as anti-democratic, or anti-liberal. It doesn't change the fact that they are as a whole, an enactment of what liberal democracy can be like.

It doesn't mean it could not bring into dispute key ideals that Liberalism and Democracy promotes.

You haven't lived under it and thus isn't really a topic for comparison.
That is always your excuse for everything.. when atheists are at fault of heinous mass murders you extricate yourself by alleging all that atheism is, is a lack of belief in God, same token here

Are you suggesting that one cannot compare anything with anything if they have not 'experienced' or in this case "lived under" it?

Why would the actions of specific communists in specific states at specific times have any relevance to the now modern secular, democratic and generally anti-communistic atheist? They may disbelieve in God, but there all similarities end.

No, I don't!

..Why?

I'll add to that: Do you think any ideology can be sincere?

[Skavau]

I never spoke about contended islamic motivated crimes. This is what I wrote:

What you wrote amount of the same thing essentially. You complained it was "unfortunate" that people connected crimes committed by muslims and/or in a muslim environment with Islam - when effectively it is the obvious thing for anyone (with a little bit of prejudice and bigotry) to do.

And to say that muslims or some muslims connect school shootings to Secular states (Lol) is very ignorant and incorrect.

No it isn't. Have you read any media responses to the school shootings? Not just the ones in Finland, but in general. Have you passed to look at what the right-wing Christians think about school shootings? Why they claim that they happen?

I have seen this also with my interaction with Muslims as well.

[Asiyah3]

What you wrote amount of the same thing essentially. You complained it was "unfortunate" that people connected crimes committed by muslims and/or in a muslim environment with Islam - when effectively it is the obvious thing for anyone (with a little bit of prejudice and bigotry) to do.

Do you honestly even realize what you're saying? It's obvious to connect crimes committed by muslims or in a muslim environment with Islam? How old are you? lol

No it isn't. Have you read any media responses to the school shootings? Not just the ones in Finland, but in general. Have you passed to look at what the right-wing Christians think about school shootings? Why they claim that they happen?

I have seen this also with my interaction with Muslims as well.

No I haven't looked at what the right-wing Christians think about it, why should I? This thread is about Islam and muslims and not the Christians interpretation of school shootings.

Edit: I'll be responding to Hugo later.

[Skavau]

Do you honestly even realize what you're saying? It's obvious to connect crimes committed by muslims or in a muslim environment with Islam? How old are you? lol

Please, read what I said again.

It is an obvious connection to make for someone who is not versed in Islam. If they see some honour killing taking place in a Muslim country, they might rightly or wrongly associate it with Islam. If they see some stoning, some miscarraige of justice or some arbitrary sentencing for witchcraft or such like taking place in these countries they will connect it with Islam.

This is not an unlikely comparison that some who are not familiar with the intricacies of Islam could make.

And by the way, anyone who commits a crime in the name of or for any specific belief is extolling some consequences of that ideology, irrespectively of how accurate they are in doing so.

[Asiyah3]

Please, read what I said again.

Peace, Done.

It is an obvious connection to make for someone who is not versed in Islam. If they see some honour killing taking place in a Muslim country, they might rightly or wrongly associate it with Islam. If they see some stoning, some miscarraige of justice or some arbitrary sentencing for witchcraft or such like taking place in these countries they will connect it with Islam.

This is not an unlikely comparison that some who are not familiar with the intricacies of Islam could make.

Well, that's exactly what I said.

No wonder... because after something is heard being done by a muslim or in a muslim environment people connect it with Islam/muslims directly... unfortunately.

And by the way, anyone who commits a crime in the name of or for any specific belief is extolling some consequences of that ideology, irrespectively of how accurate they are in doing so.

Again as I've said repeatedly I never spoke about contended islamic motivated crimes. Are honour killings made in the name of Islam? Or what you actually believe that those who do it make a demonstration of it and hang labels above skyscrapers? Come back to reality.

It doesn't have to be made in the name of the specific belief as long as it's done by a muslim or in a muslim environment. For instance there are people here who actually believe that Islam orders men to rape women?... How about are these rapes made in the name of Islam? Can't people use their common sense?

[جوري]

Yes I accept that there exist states that describe themselves as both 'liberal' and 'democratic'. I also accept that these states do things that can sometimes only be described as anti-democratic, or anti-liberal. It doesn't change the fact that they are as a whole, an enactment of what liberal democracy can be like.

well that is very convenient -- when things are optimum there is no greater system, when they aren't crap happens.. well try to apply that philosophy to other ideologies even man made ones, surely even communism has many perks when you create enough loop holes!

It doesn't mean it could not bring into dispute key ideals that Liberalism and Democracy promotes.

How can one bring 'key ideals' when the reality goes by different standards? Yes, somethings are nice on paper, they don't translate well into real life!

Are you suggesting that one cannot compare anything with anything if they have not 'experienced' or in this case "lived under" it?

By what qualifications? theoretical ones? I am not personally interested in your theories!

Why would the actions of specific communists in specific states at specific times have any relevance to the now modern secular, democratic and generally anti-communistic atheist? They may disbelieve in God, but there all similarities end.

Do they? Perhaps even in atheistic communism there is some semblance of equality and humanness that completely lacks in atheistic liberal democracy. I don't know where your baseline is and I don't want to gamble on it!

..Why?

I'll add to that: Do you think any ideology can be sincere?

Only divine ideologies are-- sincerity is as sincere as its practitioners. But if I had to put my money on something it wouldn't be what you subscribe to-- I don't know where your moral compass hangs and don't care to go by the word of honor of folks like to gamble!

all the best

[Asiyah3]

Why is it too ridiculous to discuss

What you want us to dispute the number of crimes made in the West & East? Aren't we a little mature for this?

as I don't think anything I said is untrue, but my point was that trading incidents proves nothing because we cannot generalise from one incident to a whole society, perhaps that is what you mean.

Exactly. Perhaps you've mixed my post to Skavau's.

More often than not when incidents are cited its a way of deflecting criticism as if one wrong can justify others. If one reads Islamic Boards like this one there is rarely an acceptance that ills exist in an Islamic society or if they do it is the fault of imperialism, the west etc. This was aptly put by Al Arif al Akhdar:

There is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besting your society. Its all the fault of the West, of infidels.

Massive strawman.

Of course the West to a certain extent does the same but at least the West admits to its failings - for example, the crusades were a disgrace but where will you find any Muslim saying the same about Muslim conquests?

Sorry, couldn't grab the gist.

Part of freedom is being able to face up to the truth especially when it points to failings or it is disgraceful in some way instead of hiding it or blaming it on someone else.

Indeed if the accusations are false, though I wouldn't relate that to freedom.

[Hugo]

What you want us to dispute the number of crimes made in the West & East? Aren't we a little mature for this?

Please don't decide what I might or might not want to do. My point if I made any point is that crimes occur everywhere and citing one example and then drawing conclusions from it about whole societies or philosophies the degradation of the West or the viciousness of Islamic regimes is not rational or helpful and that is what maturity is, even handedness and at least awareness of ones own bias?

Of course we can discuss individual cases and see what might be learned but at the same time be wary of generalizing from it.

Hugo - More often than not when incidents are cited its a way of deflecting criticism as if one wrong can justify others. If one reads Islamic Boards like this one there is rarely an acceptance that ills exist in an Islamic society or if they do it is the fault of imperialism, the west etc. This was aptly put by Al Arif al Akhdar:
There is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besting your society. Its all the fault of the West, of infidels.

In what way is this strawman, I have not undermined any ones position simple made an observation? I indeed assumed you might agree that the tactic of citing incidents is a way of avoiding questions? Sadly, we have all from time to time done it.

Hugo - Of course the West to a certain extent does the same but at least the West admits to its failings - for example, the crusades were a disgrace but where will you find any Muslim saying the same about Muslim conquests?

Sorry, couldn't grab the gist.

I am asking if you agree that there were Muslim conquests, peoples were subjugated - if you like an equivalent but on a much bigger scale that the crusades? Do you feel free to agree to this?

Hugo - Part of freedom is being able to face up to the truth especially when it points to failings or it is disgraceful in some way instead of hiding it or blaming it on someone else.

Indeed if the accusations are false, though I wouldn't relate that to freedom.

I am note sure what you are saying here, you will only face up to accusations if they are false? This does relate to freedoms because there have been many regimens who have tried to suppress history because it shows them in a bad light - Turkey with the Kurds for instance, attempts by many to say the Holocaust never happened, GUantanomo bay etc etc

[Skavau]

well that is very convenient -- when things are optimum there is no greater system, when they aren't crap happens.. well try to apply that philosophy to other ideologies even man made ones, surely even communism has many perks when you create enough loop holes!

Uhr, no.

I was stating that many self-professed liberal & democratic states do things that are in contradiction to both liberalism and democracy.

How can one bring 'key ideals' when the reality goes by different standards? Yes, somethings are nice on paper, they don't translate well into real life!

I agree with you to an extent. What I was getting at in general though is that Muslims often ruthlessly disconnect themselves with every Muslim-majority state on the planet due to the fact that some things they do are not wholly consistent with Sharia Law and then decree that due to this no-one can criticise a Muslim run nation.

I think that is an absurd demand. From a skeptical perspective, Islam has to be as Muslims do. I think it is fair to insist that Muslims do somewhat represent Islam.

By what qualifications? theoretical ones? I am not personally interested in your theories!

Huh?

I asked you do you think people should not comment on anything if they have not lived under it, or experienced it?

Do they? Perhaps even in atheistic communism there is some semblance of equality and humanness that completely lacks in atheistic liberal democracy. I don't know where your baseline is and I don't want to gamble on it!

Yes they do. The modern day atheist now can arguably be described as liberal, democratic and secular. Not communistic.

If you want to believe I am some closet Stalinist, by all means. But I am not.

Only divine ideologies are-- sincerity is as sincere as its practitioners. But if I had to put my money on something it wouldn't be what you subscribe to-- I don't know where your moral compass hangs and don't care to go by the word of honor of folks like to gamble!

Right so you don't trust anything I say. Ever.

May I ask you what you think the purposes of 'democracy' and 'liberalism' are?

[جوري]

Uhr, no.

I was stating that many self-professed liberal & democratic states do things that are in contradiction to both liberalism and democracy.

When it occurs on daily basis one can safely conclude that, that is what 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are all about.. the approval of the majority to behave like uncivilized assholes!

I agree with you to an extent. What I was getting at in general though is that Muslims often ruthlessly disconnect themselves with every Muslim-majority state on the planet due to the fact that some things they do are not wholly consistent with Sharia Law and then decree that due to this no-one can criticise a Muslim run nation.

We should indeed disconnect ourselves from those who don't represent Islam, those who do are usually labeled as 'fanatic' 'terrorists' 'extremists' 'wahhabis' 'islamists' and from where I am standing 'liberal democracy' doesn't like them very much or any attempt made on their part to reunite or establish the Muslim world under one banner.. so they torture them and take them away from their kids and give them phony trials imprison them for life, or target them for uttering words that are incongruous with the western understanding of the term 'liberal democracy' it is a funny thing actually!

I think that is an absurd demand. From a skeptical perspective, Islam has to be as Muslims do. I think it is fair to insist that Muslims do somewhat represent Islam.

see above!

Huh?

I asked you do you think people should not comment on anything if they have not lived under it, or experienced it?

Indeed you shouldn't.. or at least do it in circles of like minds.. no one here owes you any explanation!

Yes they do. The modern day atheist now can arguably be described as liberal, democratic and secular. Not communistic.

And what makes you oh so much better than a commie?

If you want to believe I am some closet Stalinist, by all means. But I am not.

It wouldn't make a difference and that is the bottom line of what I'd written..

Right so you don't trust anything I say. Ever.

I didn't think I was under any obligation to.. thanks for stating the obvious!

May I ask you what you think the purposes of 'democracy' and 'liberalism' are?

What we have seen thus far more akin to totalitarianism than anything!

all the best

[Skavau]

When it occurs on daily basis one can safely conclude that, that is what 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are all about.. the approval of the majority to behave like uncivilized assholes!

So by this logic, we'll just conclude that the actions of the Saudi Arabian Monarchs reflect Sharia Law because, well, they claim that they propose Sharia Law.

We should indeed disconnect ourselves from those who don't represent Islam, those who do are usually labeled as 'fanatic' 'terrorists' 'extremists' 'wahhabis' 'islamists' and from where I am standing 'liberal democracy' doesn't like them very much or any attempt made on their part to reunite or establish the Muslim world under one banner.. so they torture them and take them away from their kids and give them phony trials imprison them for life, or target them for uttering words that are incongruous with the western understanding of the term 'liberal democracy' it is a funny thing actually!

You'll have to give some examples here.

And by the way, you can disconnect yourself with who you like - just do not deem it unreasonable that people might connect the actions of a muslim-majority state that claims to rule by divine ordinance with Islam.

Indeed you shouldn't.. or at least do it in circles of like minds.. no one here owes you any explanation!

I am not insisting on an explanation. I decided to comment in this thread.

And what makes you oh so much better than a commie?

I don't understand the question. I wasn't saying I was. Just stating that I am not a communist, nor have any leanings towards it.

What we have seen thus far more akin to totalitarianism than anything!

Could you elaborate how that is the case? Liberalism by definition cannot be totalitarian.

[جوري]

So by this logic, we'll just conclude that the actions of the Saudi Arabian Monarchs reflect Sharia Law because, well, they claim that they propose Sharia Law.

I don't think you are capable of using logic if that is what you have concluded from the previous!

You'll have to give some examples here.

Browse this forum you can't miss it..

And by the way, you can disconnect yourself with who you like - just do not deem it unreasonable that people might connect the actions of a muslim-majority state that claims to rule by divine ordinance with Islam.

The Muslims majority are unhappy about the ruling few.. those who stage a coup aren't met with success unfortunately.. and there is a vested interest in keeping them in places like gitmo.

I am not insisting on an explanation. I decided to comment in this thread.

You decided to comment on my comments and these are the responses I have!

I don't understand the question. I wasn't saying I was. Just stating that I am not a communist, nor have any leanings towards it.

There is no question.. it is an observation, whether you subscribe to communism or liberalism it doesn't make much of a difference.

Could you elaborate how that is the case? Liberalism by definition cannot be totalitarian.

We have already stated that definitions and real life application are two separate issues about a few posts ago, I don't like going in loops!

all the best

[MSalman]

same topics discussed many times before and like in the past this is nothing but beating around the bush with nothing gained at the end. Instead of arguing back and forth, let's start from the basics: the kuffaar in this thread define liberty and freedom for me? and who decides this definition and why one should adhere to this definition and its implication?

So by this logic, we'll just conclude that the actions of the Saudi Arabian Monarchs reflect Sharia Law because, well, they claim that they propose Sharia Law.

with this absurd point, you are the last person to talk about logic or any common sense. By using this logic, we can say that the actions of certain western countries, which is occupying lands and killing millions of innocent person, represents democracy and liberty. We can also say that the criminal actions of certain atheists, liberalists, humanists represents liberty. Do you agree with this? If you say no then on what basis you are willing to make an absurd conclusion for one side but you simple gain some wisdom when it is returned back at you?

[Hugo]

same topics discussed many times before and like in the past this is nothing but beating around the bush with nothing gained at the end. Instead of arguing back and forth, let's start from the basics: the kuffaar in this thread define liberty and freedom for me? and who decides this definition and why one should adhere to this definition and its implication?

If YOU take the trouble to read the post I began the thread with definitions. IF you think they are inadequate or wrong then say so and explain what you might men by freedom and liberty - perhaps its you that is 'beating round the bush'?

with this absurd point, you are the last person to talk about logic or any common sense. By using this logic, we can say that the actions of certain western countries, which is occupying lands and killing millions of innocent person, represents democracy and liberty. We can also say that the criminal actions of certain atheists, liberalists, humanists represents liberty. Do you agree with this? If you say no then on what basis you are willing to make an absurd conclusion for one side but you simple gain some wisdom when it is returned back at you?

Can you be precise here, which Western country is killing 'millions' consider say Iraq or Afganistan and ask who is bombing who in the streets and shopping places and Mosques? You are free to point the finger at say Americas but are you free enough to see and say how iniquitous it is for one Muslim group to target another?

One consequence of liberty is to own up to your own failing as a society - don't you agree?

[Skavau]

with this absurd point, you are the last person to talk about logic or any common sense. By using this logic, we can say that the actions of certain western countries, which is occupying lands and killing millions of innocent person, represents democracy and liberty. We can also say that the criminal actions of certain atheists, liberalists, humanists represents liberty. Do you agree with this? If you say no then on what basis you are willing to make an absurd conclusion for one side but you simple gain some wisdom when it is returned back at you?

If you had bothered to read the context of that, you'd know I was commenting on what Skye had said concerning the western world. I was responding to this statement specifically:

When it occurs on daily basis one can safely conclude that, that is what 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are all about.. the approval of the majority to behave like uncivilized assholes!

[MSalman]

If YOU take the trouble to read the post I began the thread with definitions. IF you think they are inadequate or wrong then say so and explain what you might men by freedom and liberty - perhaps its you that is 'beating round the bush'?

let's not display our reading comprehension problems. I already know what you have said in the first post and I did spend sometime to read it. I already know what you believe in because I have discussed with you similar topics many times before. Yet, you have failed to answer my main question which is: "Why one should adhere to your definition and its implication? On what basis you say that your definition is correct/more accurate or this is the solution to make better place for humanity". Mind you, before you attack me with a straw man as you usually do, I am not saying that your position is wrong or right. I am simply asking you why you think that your position is correct. Is there some sort of standard criteria to which we all agree upon and say "this is fine but that is not fine"? If it is not, then at the end of the day it is simply your understanding and perception and by no means it becomes a fact/reality. Just because you define liberty a certain way doesn't mean that we are certain that this is how the liberty should be. Or the the society should be bounded by this kind of liberty. What you are saying and bringing up is purely subjective in nature.

I hope you get my drift!

Can you be precise here, which Western country is killing 'millions' consider say Iraq or Afganistan and ask who is bombing who in the streets and shopping places and Mosques? You are free to point the finger at say Americas but are you free enough to see and say how iniquitous it is for one Muslim group to target another?

this is pretty nonsensical of you to bring such a irrelevant point to discussion. People are well aware of which countries took part in invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and how they created a big mess there. Were there any suicide bombing and chaos before your democratic/liberal countries invaded these countries? Why do your people keep supporting this mess and not letting people to settle down? But that is beside the point to divert attention from key point. The point is that can certain actions of individuals be used as evidence to show his actions are the teachings of his ideology? Just to make myself clear, for example, can one say that Christianity condones rape or teaches it because some Christan was a rapist? In my 4 years of many discussion with many different kuffaar, you and skavu are the only two people who made this absurd claim.

@skavu

I may have taken your point out of context; however, you were trying to make a similar claim in one of your earliest posts in this thread. I haven't read every single post, maybe you rectified it or maybe I misunderstood you. So if I have misunderstood you then I apologize for that.

[Hugo]

Yet, you have failed to answer my main question which is: "Why one should adhere to your definition and its implication? On what basis you say that your definition is correct/more accurate or this is the solution to make better place for humanity".

I offered the definitions as a way of starting the thread. However, it does seem that freedom is something everyone wants and typically that means freedom of conscience, freedom to say what you believe, freedom to disagree, freedom to take up a religion or leave it, freedom to choose what to believe, freedom to speak openly or offer legitimate criticism of any one including any prophets, freedom to change a government, etc. I cannot see thee would make the world a worse place? If you don't want them fine but don't deny them them to others.

Mind you, before you attack me with a straw man as you usually do, I am not saying that your position is wrong or right. I am simply asking you why you think that your position is correct. Is there some sort of standard criteria to which we all agree upon and say "this is fine but that is not fine"?

Where exactly is the strawman, all I have done is state some possible definitions? My standards are as stated above and central as criteria as the freedoms to think as I wish and freedom of conscience. Why would anyone not agree to what I have said?

I

f it is not, then at the end of the day it is simply your understanding and perception and by no means it becomes a fact/reality. Just because you define liberty a certain way doesn't mean that we are certain that this is how the liberty should be. Or the the society should be bounded by this kind of liberty. What you are saying and bringing up is purely subjective in nature.

This is liberty, you can ignore what I say and I can ignore you. You might say that only in Islam is liberty but I profoundly disagree and we don't have to hate or kill each because of it do we? It cannot be more than subjective as far as I can see.

But that is beside the point to divert attention from key point. The point is that can certain actions of individuals be used as evidence to show his actions are the teachings of his ideology? Just to make myself clear, for example, can one say that Christianity condones rape or teaches it because some Christan was a rapist? In my 4 years of many discussion with many different kuffaar, you and skavu are the only two people who made this absurd claim.

One cannot use single examples to judge a whole society but it also must be true that Muslim by their actions define Islam. Christians say 'by their deeds shall you know them' and by implication we are Gods witnesses and how we react reflects in some way on Him. This is the only claim I have made

[VizierX]

@Hugo: Saudi Arabia regulates and censors its internet. I do not see this is as restricting liberty. I actually value such activities and would help the department at King Saud uni to censor sites which they are not aware of. If you have problem with such attitudes, well, dont live in Saudi.

You might not consider this liberty, but this is liberty for us. Liberating people from evil ideas by stopping their access to such material. Who gave the government the right to do so? Technically, Islamic Ameer has the rights to censor infiltration of kufr ideas into dar ul islam.

Yep, its called the social contract.

[Hugo]

Yep, its called the social contract.

The Social contract idea was introduced about 400 years ago and notably by Rousseau and it tries to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion is essentially democratic and implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. Social contract theory is an historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. So an individual's rational self-interest may be voluntarily given up in its state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

NONE of this is true for Saudi Arabia (see the connected posts), there is no social contract. Indeed if you listen to some Islamic commentators such liberty to consent is unislamic since it is God's law, ipso facto there is no liberty of consent in Islam.

[VizierX]

The Social contract idea was introduced about 400 years ago and notably by Rousseau and it tries to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion is essentially democratic and implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. Social contract theory is an historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. So an individual's rational self-interest may be voluntarily given up in its state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

NONE of this is true for Saudi Arabia (see the connected posts), there is no social contract. Indeed if you listen to some Islamic commentators such liberty to consent is unislamic since it is God's law, ipso facto there is no liberty of consent in Islam.

The point is if you want to be a community you're going to have to abide by its rules. If you don't like it you should leave. This is simply common sense.

[Hugo]

The point is if you want to be a community you're going to have to abide by its rules. If you don't like it you should leave. This is simply common sense.

But suppose you have nowhere to go, the land where you live IS your home and in any case why should we not be able to protest and change society? In the West Muslims can do that but it seems as soon as they gain power they will deny that right to others - sounds dishonest to me.

But you are I think avoiding the question that in Saudi there is no social contract and that is what Islam amounts to, people have no say, cannot criticise the law and must take it or leave it - no freedom of thought or conscience - you may be happy with that world but I would not be and it is in no sense free.

[VizierX]

[QUOTE=Hugo;1292730]But suppose you have nowhere to go, the land where you live IS your home and in any case why should we not be able to protest and change society?

The world is a big place. Saudi Arabia doesn't take up the entire surface of the planet. If you want to be a citizen of a society you're going to have to abide by its rules. Its quite simple. I don't like how the Saudis do things, that's why I don't live there.

In the West Muslims can do that but it seems as soon as they gain power they will deny that right to others - sounds dishonest to me.

That's ridiculous. If you think European Muslims want to turn their adopted countries into Saudi Arabia you need to go get your checked. If I wanted the Saudi experience I'd go live in Saudi Arabia.

[Skavau]

The point is if you want to be a community you're going to have to abide by its rules. If you don't like it you should leave. This is simply common sense.

A cheap point.

I have seen this argued concerning Islamic states. The old, tired and overused cultural relativist argument of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans'. That they have the 'right' to intrude on personal liberty. That you have no 'right' to complain about it.

The first problem with it, is that it is usually proposed dishonestly. Muslims do not accept cultural relativism (their argument for Islamic states here) and many would very much like it if the entire world was under the rule of the Caliphate. Others, if not proposing this - simply wait patiently and happily for the end of their life and/or world when they believe that Allah will begin assuming direct control.

I would like to think that when people say that they stand universally against justice that it means something. This argument renders that ideal an impossibility. If you are to propose that every sovereign state has complete right to its own affairs, then you grant all manners of petty dictators the right to run their country and its population into the ground through the abuse and control of others. You would necessarily contend that all concerns over human rights and personal freedom as conducted by all aid organisations, charitable groups and political groups as meaningless and, ironically intrusive. I should like to think that it a Fourth Reich resurfaced we would have enough understanding of the suffering of others to voice our contempt and show our desire to have it removed.

The rights of the individual must always take precedent over the right of the dear leader to control him or her. Whoever stated that the 'rights' of a nation over its populace (I don't believe any nation ought to be entitled to treat its citizens how it pleases) had no understanding of how concepts such as human rights mean everything. For without it, you may as well not exist.

The final problem by the way is that your statement by the way that people should leave if they dispute the dear leader is flawed. Some fascist states make it impossible for you to leave if you disapprove of their methods. They do not allow it. All information I have over North Korea is that any form of political dissentation means life in prison, torture or possible death. North Korea even try that on with non-citizens who cross their border. Do you suppose that's okay? Do you suppose that North Korea can do what it likes? That it is not acceptable for us to intervene?

Perhaps an example closer to home, is an apostate of Islam under Sharia Law. Do they get an option to leave the state or must they face execution/imprisonment for their 'crimes'?

[VizierX]

A cheap point.

Faux.

I have seen this argued concerning Islamic states. The old, tired and overused cultural relativist argument of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans'. That they have the 'right' to intrude on personal liberty. That you have no 'right' to complain about it.

If you are a natural atheist, then you can't logically be anything but a cultural relativist. All talk of rights also descends into fantasy since there cannot be any such things as objective rights in a naturalistic universe.

The first problem with it, is that it is usually proposed dishonestly. Muslims do not accept cultural relativism (their argument for Islamic states here) and many would very much like it if the entire world was under the rule of the Caliphate.

Unless you're a cultural/moral realist, which is logically indefensible for a naturalist, you're being equally dishonest.

The rights of the individual must always take precedent over the right of the dear leader to control him or her. Whoever stated that the 'rights' of a nation over its populace (I don't believe any nation ought to be entitled to treat its citizens how it pleases) had no understanding of how concepts such as human rights mean everything. For without it, you may as well not exist.

This is all your subjective opinion and has no basis in objective reality.

Perhaps an example closer to home, is an apostate of Islam under Sharia Law. Do they get an option to leave the state or must they face execution/imprisonment for their 'crimes'?

I don't believe that apostasy is a crime punishable by death. But if that is the law of the land you should leave prior to committing apostasy. Its very simple.

[Skavau]

If you are a natural atheist, then you can't logically be anything but a cultural relativist. All talk of rights also descends into fantasy since there cannot be any such things as objective rights in a naturalistic universe.

Understanding that morality is or could be subjective has nothing to do with cultural relativism.

This is all your subjective opinion and has no basis in objective reality.

If it is my 'subjective opinion' (of course it is, look who is saying it) - then on what grounds ought I accept the claim that a nationstate can run itself how it likes?

I don't believe that apostasy is a crime punishable by death. But if that is the law of the land you should leave prior to committing apostasy. Its very simple.

Well I'm glad to hear that you don't really care about people's suffering. That all it takes is a state to exist for you to shrug your shoulders and mutter that people should just deal with it.

Or do you not think that?

[VizierX]

[QUOTE=Skavau;1292829]Understanding that morality is or could be subjective has nothing to do with cultural relativism.

Ok. So what?

If it is my 'subjective opinion' (of course it is, by definition) - then on what grounds ought I accept the claim that a nationstate can run itself how it likes?

It doesn't matter what you think. Nation states will run themselves how they like. The world doesn't operate according to your personal ideas of what it ought to be like.

Well I'm glad to hear that you don't really care about people's suffering. That all it takes is a state to exist for you to shrug your shoulders and mutter that people should just deal with it.

I'm saying if you don't like the laws and rules of a particular community and you aren't in a position to change them, you should leave. I don't see how a person could have interpreted it in the fashion that you have.

[Skavau]

Ok. So what?

So your claim that I have to by consequence of my positions be a relativist is wrong.

It doesn't matter what you think. Nation states will run themselves how they like. The world doesn't operate according to your personal ideas of what it ought to be like.

I know this. Your point? This is not a moral justification, merely an assertion that people with power are capable of maintaining that power without much or any intervention.

I was merely responding to what I see as an overused cheap point of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" to justify atrocities.

I'm saying if you don't like the laws and rules of a particular community and you aren't in a position to change them, you should leave. I don't see how a person could have interpreted it in the fashion that you have.

That goes without saying.

It doesn't make that community right though. Which was my point. I interpreted in the way you typed it to make a moral point - that everyone's suffering, ill-treatment and lack of freedom ought to be a concern to us all nevermind where they live or what dear leader they are compelled to waive personal sovereignty to.

I suspect you would rightly complain if suddenly the nation you are in decided that your personal liberty was no concern of theirs and detained you indefinitely on false allegations. Why can this be handwaved away if it happens in a little African microstate run to the ground by fascist thugs?

[VizierX]

So your claim that I have to by consequence of my positions be a relativist is wrong.

Relativist in terms of what?

I know this. Your point? This is not a moral justification, merely an assertion that people with power are capable of maintaining that power without much or any intervention.

Without an objective moral standard to appeal to any talk of morality is pretty much subjective gibberish.

I was merely responding to what I see as an overused cheap point of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" to justify atrocities.

If you break the the rules of your community knowing full well the consequences, then you are fully responsible for the punishment.

It doesn't make that community right though....

What makes something right? What makes something wrong? How would you answer this without getting into an infinite regress or circularity?

I suspect you would rightly complain if suddenly the nation you are in decided that your personal liberty was no concern of theirs and detained you indefinitely on false allegations.

Of course I would. But that is fundamentally different to what happens in a society like Saudi Arabia. There is an explicit rule of law there. If you abide by its laws you'll be fine, if you don't you'll get punished. If you don't like the laws you are also quite free to leave. In effect your freedom and liberty are not compromised *at all*.

[Skavau]

Relativist in terms of what?

You stated that I had to by necessity be a moral relativist. I do not.

Without an objective moral standard to appeal to any talk of morality is pretty much subjective gibberish.

How can an 'objective moral standard' even exist? It is an incoherent concept in and of itself. It is like saying that a favourite colour is objective.

And what do you mean by 'subjective gibberish'?

If you break the the rules of your community knowing full well the consequences, then you are fully responsible for the punishment.

Is this supposed to be some moral justification for fascist dictators controlling other people's lives? They are blameless and free from responsibility as long as they are concise about their rules? What is this?

So people who stood up against the Nazi's were responsible for the punishments they received? The White Rose Movement knew what they were getting into, so we'll just ignore what happened to them as a consequence shall we?

What makes something right? What makes something wrong? How would you answer this without getting into an infinite regress or circularity?

I'm not specifically interested in explaining how I view morality. I freely assert my moral claims nonetheless with full knowledge of their subjective nature and human-centric objectives. It does not bother me. I tend to think that civilisation and the people in it, if even for reasons of self-interest are valid and mean more than artifical constructs that exist only for themselves and at the expense of others.

Of course I would. But that is fundamentally different to what happens in a society like Saudi Arabia. There is an explicit rule of law there. If you abide by its laws you'll be fine, if you don't you'll get punished. If you don't like the laws you are also quite free to leave. In effect your freedom and liberty are not compromised *at all*.

So all that matters to you here is not whether rules are made in the disinterest of other people's personal liberty but whether they are consistent and concise?

How do you even measure this in a state with unelected leaders? They often (as much as possible) declare rules without asking any citizen of that nation their opinion. They can do what they like for no reason and at the expense of who they like.

[VizierX]

You stated that I had to by necessity be a moral relativist. I do not.

If you are a natural atheist then taking moral realist stance is logically indefensible.

How can an 'objective moral standard' even exist? It is an incoherent concept in and of itself. It is like saying that a favourite colour is objective.

Correct!

And what do you mean by 'subjective gibberish'?

Open a dictionary.

Is this supposed to be some moral justification for fascist dictators controlling other people's lives? They are blameless and free from responsibility as long as they are concise about their rules? What is this?

What is a moral justification in your naturalistic worldview?

So people who stood up against the Nazi's were responsible for the punishments they received? The White Rose Movement knew what they were getting into, so we'll just ignore what happened to them as a consequence shall we?

Jews were simply being targeted in virtue of what they are, not due to any actions or crimes they committed. They had no choice in the matter. There is a fundamental difference between that and, say, being punished due to committing public apostasy in a community where it is illegal. So your Godwin attempt simply fails.

Also from a natural atheistic worldview one cannot morally condemn Nazis. You cannot say that what the Nazis did was morally wrong. That's how ethically impoverished your atheism is.

I'm not specifically interested in explaining how I view morality. I freely assert my moral claims nonetheless with full knowledge of their subjective nature and human-centric objectives. It does not bother me. I tend to think that civilisation and the people in it, if even for reasons of self-interest are valid and mean more than artifical constructs that exist only for themselves and at the expense of others.

Right, so you cannot say that what the Nazis did was objectively wrong. Rape, murder, genocide... there's nothing inherently wrong about any of them in your atheistic worldview.

So all that matters to you here is not whether rules are made in the disinterest of other people's personal liberty but whether they are consistent and concise?

There is no intrusion upon a person's liberty. It is a free choice to be a part of a particular community.

How do you even measure this in a state with unelected leaders? They often (as much as possible) declare rules without asking any citizen of that nation their opinion. They can do what they like for no reason and at the expense of who they like.

It doesn't really matter. As long as they make clear what the laws are and allow the citizens the freedom to leave, a person's liberty is not curtailed.

[Skavau]

Correct!

So you yourself, even with the assumption of Islam do not believe that morality is objective?

What is a moral justification in your naturalistic worldview?

For what?

I was asking if you think knowledge of consequences of how people might react to your actions mean that they are absolved morally from the situation?

Are dictators blameless and free from responsibility as long as they are concise about their rules?

Jews were simply being targeted in virtue of what they are, not due to any actions or crimes they committed. They had no choice in the matter. There is a fundamental difference between that and, say, being punished due to committing public apostasy in a community where it is illegal. So your Godwin attempt simply fails.

The White Rose movement weren't.

So an invalid comparison. Irrespectively, let us propose hypothetically that a group of dictators take control of a state. They decree that every Taoist must leave the state or face lifetime imprisonment. Is that moral? People's livelihoods are being destroyed and disregarded because of the objectives of the dear leader - but the option to leave is there (which you are contending is an important distinction).

Also from a natural atheistic worldview one cannot morally condemn Nazis. You cannot say that what the Nazis did was morally wrong. That's how ethically impoverished your atheism is.

Atheism isn't an ethical system. It is a descriptive term that refers to people who do not believe in the existence of God. Some atheists may contend morality is objective, others may not. In any case, you cannot pretend to understand how people think about morality based on whether they believe in God or not.

I would go so far to say by the way, that no-one can claim that the Nazi's were 'objectively wrong'. Not even if you contend God as a source for all morality (an incoherent claim).

There is no intrusion upon a person's liberty. It is a free choice to be a part of a particular community.

Not if you are born into it. Not if you are born into an Islamic state, find yourself at some point in your life beginning to doubt Islam and then being forced to leave because of the social and/or legal rammifications of apostasy.

It doesn't really matter. As long as they make clear what the laws are and allow the citizens the freedom to leave, a person's liberty is not curtailed.

I am interested to know how a nation even qualifies for statehood according to you? Is it just as long as they are declared? Does popular support come into it?

[Hugo]

The world is a big place. Saudi Arabia doesn't take up the entire surface of the planet. If you want to be a citizen of a society you're going to have to abide by its rules. Its quite simple. I don't like how the Saudis do things, that's why I don't live there.

I think you are missing the point, which is that some have nowhere else to go and why should they not be able to protest and bring about changes.

That's ridiculous. If you think European Muslims want to turn their adopted countries into Saudi Arabia you need to go get your checked. If I wanted the Saudi experience I'd go live in Saudi Arabia.

It is not a good idea or clever to try to insult me but let me put it this way, do you want a state in Europe that institutionalises sharia as the law of the land or do you regard it as outdated and discriminatory. You might go to Saudi but your chances of becoming a citizen there are nil - why is that do you think.

[aamirsaab]

I think you are missing the point, which is that some have nowhere else to go and why should they not be able to protest and bring about changes.

The issue is not whether you can protest or not in Islamic countries (the answer is you can but that raises a can of worms that if people are led to doing that, there are some very big issues with the government!). The real issue is whether or not that protest will have any effect because of the current leaders (who are all corrupt by the way).

It is not a good idea or clever to try to insult me but let me put it this way, do you want a state in Europe that institutionalises sharia as the law of the land or do you regard it as outdated and discriminatory.

Well, seeing as there is no caliphate, sharia law cannot Islamically speaking, come into any society today. So this question doesn't really apply.

[Froggy]

The issue is not whether you can protest or not in Islamic countries (the answer is you can but that raises a can of worms that if people are led to doing that, there are some very big issues with the government!). The real issue is whether or not that protest will have any effect because of the current leaders (who are all corrupt by the way).


Well, seeing as there is no caliphate, sharia law cannot Islamically speaking, come into any society today. So this question doesn't really apply.

Let's say there is one. And let's take Bosnia and Herzegovina as an example. Bosniaks make up around half the population. Let's suppose Bosniaks decide they want sharia. Would you support the its introduction and do you think it should apply to Serbs and Croats as well?

[Skavau]

The issue is not whether you can protest or not in Islamic countries (the answer is you can but that raises a can of worms that if people are led to doing that, there are some very big issues with the government!). The real issue is whether or not that protest will have any effect because of the current leaders (who are all corrupt by the way).

What if a group of people in an Islamic state felt obliged to protest things deeply rooted in Islamic Law (concepts that the Sharia state deems infallible). Would such protest make any impact or be permissable?

A government that is corrupt might say, break up protests and prohibit criticism against itself by force. Since Sharia Law (if I'm correct here) contends itself as infallible and by extension unquestionable - how could a state that runs itself by its standards ever accept any discontent?

[aamirsaab]

Let's say there is one. And let's take Bosnia and Herzegovina as an example. Bosniaks make up around half the population. Let's suppose Bosniaks decide they want sharia. Would you support the its introduction and do you think it should apply to Serbs and Croats as well?

First let me state: You are asking the wrong guy. I don't know enough about those guys in terms of social context. Actually, the caliphate would decide on this.

Secondly: any law system introduced, and this is the Islamic view point, would have to be wanted by the people and not forced upon them.

What if a group of people in an Islamic state felt obliged to protest things deeply rooted in Islamic Law (concepts that the Sharia state deems infallible). Would such protest make any impact or be permissable?

See next point.

A government that is corrupt might say, break up protests and prohibit criticism against itself by force. Since Sharia Law (if I'm correct here) contends itself as infallible and by extension unquestionable - how could a state that runs itself by its standards ever accept any discontent?

Sharia law runs alongside with the social context of the state it is in. If society changes (which usually is the case), certain things become inapplicable (i.e multiple marriages etc ). The matter is never black or white.

So if there was indeed a protest and the rulers are just, motions would (hopefully) be carried out in an Islamic state. Though, what is (the reality) and what ought to be (the ideal) are two very different things.

[Hugo]

Secondly: any law system introduced, and this is the Islamic view point, would have to be wanted by the people and not forced upon them.

Just need to be clear, do you all people or just the Muslim part? I don't think I have heard this before that sharia is optional? Mostly, Muslim's say sharia = Islam and Islam = sharia?

Sharia law runs alongside with the social context of the state it is in. If society changes (which usually is the case), certain things become inapplicable (i.e multiple marriages etc ). The matter is never black or white

I can see that in say a the UK but are you saying here that always whether Muslim majority or not that law is never 'black and white'? That is in Saudi Arabia for example, the people could opt out of Sharia or parts of it?

So if there was indeed a protest and the rulers are just, motions would (hopefully) be carried out in an Islamic state. Though, what is (the reality) and what ought to be (the ideal) are two very different things.

This is all news to me and I think you will find the orthodox Islamic position is that the law cannot change because a ruling has been recognised in the past and is therefore binding and any change would be blameworthy innovation?

I welcome what you say but...?

[aamirsaab]

Just need to be clear, do you all people or just the Muslim part? I don't think I have heard this before that sharia is optional? Mostly, Muslim's say sharia = Islam and Islam = sharia?

Has to be by all people (or majority rule). Given that no Islamic state actually exists today (because of lack of caliphate), the only way sharia could come into place would be through means of present democracy i.e. voted in by majority.

I can see that in say a the UK but are you saying here that always whether Muslim majority or not that law is never 'black and white'? That is in Saudi Arabia for example, the people could opt out of Sharia or parts of it?

I'll explain below. As for Saudi, they are pretty strict with their interpretation of law so I doubt they would ever change, whatever the situation.

This is all news to me and I think you will find the orthodox Islamic position is that the law cannot change because a ruling has been recognised in the past and is therefore binding and any change would be blameworthy innovation?

I welcome what you say but...?

Again it's to do with social context. For example: If there is a famine in an Islamic country, then zakat (which is normally a compulsory tax for all muslims) can be levied until the end of the famine.

[Hugo]

Has to be by all people (or majority rule). Given that no Islamic state actually exists today (because of lack of caliphate), the only way sharia could come into place would be through means of present democracy i.e. voted in by majority.

Bernard Lewis ones said about moving to Islamic government: one man, one vote, once. Does it not seem odd to you that a democracy would vote away its freedoms in favour of Islam, would vote for discrimination or to put it another way would vote that we embody in law differences?

[aamirsaab]

Bernard Lewis ones said about moving to Islamic government: one man, one vote, once. Does it not seem odd to you that a democracy would vote away its freedoms in favour of Islam, would vote for discrimination or to put it another way would vote that we embody in law differences?

Look, if that's what the people want and that's what they vote for so be it - that's how a democracy works. Not everyone thinks the same way: some people love alcohol and would never want it to be banned; others hate alcohol (namely me) and would vote for a party that proposed a ban on it.

As far as loss of freedoms/discrimination goes, have you been living under a rock for the past 10 years? Anti-terrorism laws, phone tapping ring any bells? At least with Sharia, you get to have a say in the matter.

[Hugo]

Look, if that's what the people want and that's what they vote for so be it - that's how a democracy works. Not everyone thinks the same way: some people love alcohol and would never want it to be banned; others hate alcohol (namely me) and would vote for a party that proposed a ban on it.

As far as loss of freedoms/discrimination goes, have you been living under a rock for the past 10 years? Anti-terrorism laws, phone tapping ring any bells? At least with Sharia, you get to have a say in the matter.

It is a very odd idea to think we should have no laws about terrorism for example? Freedom is about about how one thinks, about the role of conscience and protest it is not about ones right to become a terrorist is it?

I have never seen anywhere that with sharia you have a say in the matter. For example all schools of law in Islam agree on the death penalty for apostasy, so in what sense does one have a 'say in the matter', can one change sharia?

[جوري]

It is a very odd idea to think we should have no laws about terrorism for example? Freedom is about about how one thinks, about the role of conscience and protest it is not about ones right to become a terrorist is it?

There is no such thing as complete liberty.. you are certainly free to think as you please, it doesn't mean you can always act on those thoughts or even utter them!

I have never seen anywhere that with sharia you have a say in the matter. For example all schools of law in Islam agree on the death penalty for apostasy, so in what sense does one have a 'say in the matter', can one change sharia?

You are educated in sharia'a .. wow we should applaud you.. which esteemed university did you graduate to be so well learned & spoken?

oh btw... "17:2 [This is what you must do] when you discover a man or woman doing evil in the eyes of God your Lord in one of the settlements that God your Lord is giving you. [That person] will have violated [God's] covenant
17:3 by going and worshiping or bowing down to the sun, moon or other heavenly bodies, whose [worship] I prohibited.
17:4 When it is told to you, you must listen and carefully interrogate [the witnesses]. If the accusation is established to be true, and this revolting practice has been done in Israel,
17:5 you shall take that man or woman who did the wicked act out to your gates. You shall then pelt the man or woman to death with stones."
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.as...K=5&CHAPTER=17)

so do you really want to go that route? or oh the OT doesn't count except when you want to pad your bible and feign worshiping the same god?


all the best

[aamirsaab]

It is a very odd idea to think we should have no laws about terrorism for example? Freedom is about about how one thinks, about the role of conscience and protest it is not about ones right to become a terrorist is it?

The point was, you didn't have any say in the matter: those laws, which impact on your freedoms, were forced upon you. Many justifications can be given, but if we are talking about loss of freedom, that fits the bill.

I have never seen anywhere that with sharia you have a say in the matter. For example all schools of law in Islam agree on the death penalty for apostasy, so in what sense does one have a 'say in the matter', can one change sharia?

Consider this: There wasn't a police force in any sharia state until Umar's rule.

Another example: the abolishment of alcohol in the first Islamic state went through several stages. It wasn't an outright ban.

A further example: not every apostate during isamic history was given the death penalty.


Islam is not completely averse to change ---> as long as that change fits within the Qur'an and Sunnah (and by extention Ijma and qiyas), it's a-ok.

Let's say for example sake, a caliphate exists and the majority of UK citizens would like sharia implemented. Let's say the caliphate is ok with this, so in terms of Islamic backing, this is all good.

But, the general consensus of citizens disagrees with the outward ban of alcohol. So one way the sharia compliant government could get around this is by going through stages. 1st step could be a curfew on alcohol (i.e. no drinking after 8 pm). Then, with time, stage 2 occurs: increase the curfew (i.e no drinking after 6 pm). So on and so forth until the prohibition is complete (similar to how alcohol was initially prohibited in Islam).

Again, this is purely for illustrative purposes only. Don't take my words out of context, pleasing.

[Froggy]

But, the general consensus of citizens disagrees with the outward ban of alcohol. So one way the sharia compliant government could get around this is by going through stages. 1st step could be a curfew on alcohol (i.e. no drinking after 8 pm). Then, with time, stage 2 occurs: increase the curfew (i.e no drinking after 6 pm). So on and so forth until the prohibition is complete (similar to how alcohol was initially prohibited in Islam).

Again, this is purely for illustrative purposes only. Don't take my words out of context, pleasing.

What if the citizens not only opposed the immediate ban on alcohol, but the ban itself?

[aamirsaab]

What if the citizens not only opposed the immediate ban on alcohol, but the ban itself?

Then I don't think they would want sharia at all in the first place. Also, if that were the case I doubt the caliphate would say: "sharia can work in this country" so it wouldn't be an issue

But let's say for argument sake, they did. In such a case, the government, if it truly was sharia compliant (and had appropriate Islamic backing), would have to find some way of curtailing alcohol since that is a big no no in islam. If the state isn't completely islamic, it should at least aim to be.

[Froggy]

Then I don't think they would want sharia at all in the first place. Also, if that were the case I doubt the caliphate would say: "sharia can work in this country" so it wouldn't be an issue

But let's say for argument sake, they did. In such a case, the government, if it truly was sharia compliant (and had appropriate Islamic backing), would have to find some way of curtailing alcohol since that is a big no no in islam. If the state isn't completely islamic, it should at least aim to be.

I think you're missing the point of the original question which goes as follows:

What if a group of people in an Islamic state felt obliged to protest things deeply rooted in Islamic Law (concepts that the Sharia state deems infallible). Would such protest make any impact or be permissable?

Say sharia alredy exists in a given country. Suppose a group of people wishes to produce alcohol. (its a bad example, it's not really something one would protest about), is there any chance the government will let them? I don't think so. And it's the same about every single part of sharia. It is unchangeable, because changes would go against state ideology = Islam.

[Froggy]

And the moral issue that arises here is whether Muslims, should they become the majority in the UK, have the right to impose their laws on the natives, that is install dimmitude upon them.

[aamirsaab]

I think you're missing the point of the original question which goes as follows:

What if a group of people in an Islamic state felt obliged to protest things deeply rooted in Islamic Law (concepts that the Sharia state deems infallible). Would such protest make any impact or be permissable?

I highly doubt that would ever occur given the nature of those particular things.

Say sharia alredy exists in a given country. Suppose a group of people wishes to produce alcohol. (its a bad example, it's not really something one would protest about), is there any chance the government will let them? I don't think so. And it's the same about every single part of sharia. It is unchangeable, because changes would go against state ideology = Islam.

Well, they cannot change core things like that because it would go against sharia. That's why I said change is A OK if it falls in line with sharia. Adaptation/innovation isn't a bad thing. But, obviously, things like pork, adultery, alcohol and gambling will always be forbidden. Now you can say, oh but what about protests - you can protest all you want, but God's word is final on those matters in a Sharia state. If you don't like that, you are completely free to move.

And the moral issue that arises here is whether Muslims, should they become the majority in the UK, have the right to impose their laws on the natives, that is install dimmitude upon them.

Well, Islamically speaking, no. Because the UK is not an Islamic state (never has, and most likely never will be) AND there exists no caliphate. Even if there was a caliphate, sharia wouldn't be applicable to the UK - So, Islamically, the answer would be no sharia for uk.

But, if a government party that proposes sharia is empowered through democractic means, then clearly it can get through (even though I would disagree vehemently ---Sharia isn't applicable for non-islamic states and certainly when no caiphate exists -> it wouldn't be considered Sharia at all).

Although, the chances of that ever happening are negligible given current social stance where the mere mentioning of sharia as a form of law in a conversation causes mass outrage re: archbishop fiasco.

[Hugo]

The point was, you didn't have any say in the matter: those laws, which impact on your freedoms, were forced upon you. Many justifications can be given, but if we are talking about loss of freedom, that fits the bill.

But here you are wrong, I voice my protest when I voted and I can continue to protest/agree, the fact that I don't perhaps agree with a every parliamentary decision but nevertheless abide by the law is all part of democratic values. This must be better that having 1400 year old laws as Thomas Paine might have put it, thrust upon you made worse by then being told 'they are God's laws' and so inviolable.

Consider this: There wasn't a police force in any sharia state until Umar's rule

I am not sure what this supposed fact is meant to convey - the state was getting so bad and corrupt that it had to have law enforcement?

Another example: the abolishment of alcohol in the first Islamic state went through several stages. It wasn't an outright ban.

But it is now!

A further example: not every apostate during isamic history was given the death penalty.

But that was not my point, my point was that the law demands the death penalty for what is obviously a personal conscience issue and so discriminates and criminalises what a person might believe.

Islam is not completely averse to change ---> as long as that change fits within the Qur'an and Sunnah (and by extention Ijma and qiyas), it's a-ok.

But don't you see that this also means NO change because once scholarly opinion shall we say 'makes up' its mind then it cannot be changed even though the institutions and circumstances on which those laws were often based change - so Islam is stuck in the past. See Al-Maqasid P8 section 1.8 for example

[Hugo]

There is no such thing as complete liberty.. you are certainly free to think as you please, it doesn't mean you can always act on those thoughts or even utter them!

Sadly there is and its called anarchy!

You are educated in sharia'a .. wow we should applaud you.. which esteemed university did you graduate to be so well learned & spoken?

Do you have to go to University to understand sharia? Funny, as most of the scholars who wrote it did not go to or belong to one. By implication of your words, the vast majority are forever unable to understand the law and that must diminish its value since it would have no practical value

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - so do you really want to go that route? or oh the OT doesn't count except when you want to pad your bible and feign worshiping the same god?

Not entirely sure what point you are making here as it is a fact that the Jewish Rabbis prided themselves on almost never exercising the death penalty and they used to have a saying about it 'not once in 70 years' but nevertheless took seriously the injunction to purge evil from among them but saw that this was about teaching and example not killing by stoning.

[جوري]

Sadly there is and its called anarchy!

I guess you are not happy under any circumstance!

Do you have to go to University to understand sharia? Funny, as most of the scholars who wrote it did not go to or belong to one. By implication of your words, the vast majority are forever unable to understand the law and that must diminish its value since it would have no piratical value

Yes you do.. and scholars are formally educated in jurisprudence..
Are you able to pass laws or understand them in the U.S or any other without proper avenues?
and to contrast does your neighbor telling you to take a couple of aspirins for your headache denotes understanding beyond what a headache is? will taking two aspirins help you with headache caused by Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura? Maybe we should all be lawyers and doctors and engineers, what is the point at all of being appropriately educated?

Not entirely sure what point you are making here as it is a fact that the Jewish Rabbis prided themselves on almost never exercising the death penalty and they used to have a saying about it 'not once in 70 years' but nevertheless took seriously the injunction to purge evil from among them but saw that this was about teaching and example not killing by stoning.

The point is, that apostasy and its punishment exists in the previous scriptures and not as your desire but as is written and appropriately quoted.. of which you extricate yourself when need be and add passages when need be to affirm that you are praying to the same god shbeal.. not only are you confused about what your beliefs should be and completely irresolute leaving us to wonder which parts you deem applicable and which should be thrown out, but you make a rather large leap to question injunctions of which you are completely under-educated.. (which is becoming so status quo for you) I wonder when you might start to feel embarrassed with your ridiculous school boy attempts at intelligent conversation...

Try for instance to read how men went out and drowned the streets of medina in liquor upon the injunction and contrast it to the American prohibition which sent thousands to jail, wasted millions, and made sick thousands of others who were making unhygienic moon shine at home..

The love of God is implanted in the hearts of true Muslims and your petty attempts at equating liquor with freedom amongst other things will not begin to scratch the surface of that actually means!

all the best

[Uthman]

I know I do this a lot but can I recommend the following video where Abdur-Raheem Green talks a little bit about this:

Media Tags are no longer supported

[aamirsaab]

But here you are wrong, I voice my protest when I voted and I can continue to protest/agree, the fact that I don't perhaps agree with a every parliamentary decision but nevertheless abide by the law is all part of democratic values.

Partially right, Democratic rule also means you have a say in the matter. As far as anti terrorism laws go into it, you didn't.

This must be better that having 1400 year old laws as Thomas Paine might have put it, thrust upon you made worse by then being told 'they are God's laws' and so inviolable.

This is why I said a caliphate is in charge of which country can or cannot have sharia law BASED on the SOCIAL CONTEXT. At a fundemental level, sharia law cannot enter the majority of the western world, simply because of social context: religion and present societal culture do not mix particularly well. It would be the most retarded thing to introduce sharia into the current western world. And this is coming from someone who is in support for sharia!

I am not sure what this supposed fact is meant to convey - the state was getting so bad and corrupt that it had to have law enforcement?

No, that society had changed and progressed since the first Islamic state. You know, like today? Why are you pot shotting anyway? Hidden agenda perhaps?

But it is now!

In Islamic countries, yes that is the case because they have the relevant Islamic history, where alcohol has been prohibited for quite some time.

But that was not my point, my point was that the law demands the death penalty for what is obviously a personal conscience issue and so discriminates and criminalises what a person might believe.

Apostasy has been covered many times on this forum (and I already told you it doesn't always apply). I'm not dealing with specific laws, you can use the search function.

But don't you see that this also means NO change because once scholarly opinion shall we say 'makes up' its mind then it cannot be changed even though the institutions and circumstances on which those laws were often based change - so Islam is stuck in the past. See Al-Maqasid P8 section 1.8 for example

I already gave you several examples of where change can occur in an Islamic state. I'm not into long and drawn out arguments especially when I explained it perfectly clear THE FIRST TIME. There are certain things that Islam won't budge on because they are core issues (adultery, alcohol, pork, gambling - the big 4). But, not all things a la polygamous marriage in cases of low male ratio, zakat in cases of famine and so on.

[VizierX]

So you yourself, even with the assumption of Islam do not believe that morality is objective?

What makes you think that? I'm not a naturalist. My Worldview ontologically allows for moral realism.

I was asking if you think knowledge of consequences of how people might react to your actions mean that they are absolved morally from the situation?

What?

Are dictators blameless and free from responsibility as long as they are concise about their rules?

From my Religious perspective or your amoral atheistic perspective?

The White Rose movement weren't.

So an invalid comparison. Irrespectively, let us propose hypothetically that a group of dictators take control of a state. They decree that every Taoist must leave the state or face lifetime imprisonment. Is that moral? People's livelihoods are being destroyed and disregarded because of the objectives of the dear leader - but the option to leave is there (which you are contending is an important distinction).

It depends upon your moral presuppositions. As a Religious person I can argue that such actions may be objectively wrong. You can't.

Atheism isn't an ethical system. It is a descriptive term that refers to people who do not believe in the existence of God. Some atheists may contend morality is objective, others may not. In any case, you cannot pretend to understand how people think about morality based on whether they believe in God or not.

I'm referring to Natural Atheism which is the norm. Naturalism ontologically precludes moral realism.

I would go so far to say by the way, that no-one can claim that the Nazi's were 'objectively wrong'. Not even if you contend God as a source for all morality (an incoherent claim).

Agree with you on your first statement. Very much disagree with you on the second.

Not if you are born into it. Not if you are born into an Islamic state, find yourself at some point in your life beginning to doubt Islam and then being forced to leave because of the social and/or legal rammifications of apostasy.

I disagree. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to be a member of a community you're going to have to agree to abide by its rules i.e. the "rent". If you don't like the terms of the contract, you are free to leave. This is basic social contract theory.

I am interested to know how a nation even qualifies for statehood according to you? Is it just as long as they are declared? Does popular support come into it?

Well, I believe in God's Law.

[VizierX]

Bernard Lewis ones said about moving to Islamic government: one man, one vote, once. Does it not seem odd to you that a democracy would vote away its freedoms in favour of Islam, would vote for discrimination or to put it another way would vote that we embody in law differences?

Its debatable whether that " one man, one vote, once" is really true but you are always left with a choice to leave if you don't like it. The decision to be part of an Islamic state (or any community) is always left to the individual. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. An individual's freedom/liberty is therefore not compromised at all.

[VizierX]

What if the citizens not only opposed the immediate ban on alcohol, but the ban itself?

Go somewhere else. Nobody is forcing the individual to remain.

[VizierX]

I think you're missing the point of the original question which goes as follows:

What if a group of people in an Islamic state felt obliged to protest things deeply rooted in Islamic Law (concepts that the Sharia state deems infallible). Would such protest make any impact or be permissable?

Say sharia alredy exists in a given country. Suppose a group of people wishes to produce alcohol. (its a bad example, it's not really something one would protest about), is there any chance the government will let them? I don't think so. And it's the same about every single part of sharia. It is unchangeable, because changes would go against state ideology = Islam.

Its very simple. Go live somewhere else. Society is a lot like a club. If you don't like the rules you are free to find another one.

[titus]

If you don't like it, you are free to leave. An individual's freedom/liberty is therefore not compromised at all.

So in any state in which you are allowed to leave there is, by definition, no compromise in freedom or liberty? Is that your assertion?

[VizierX]

So in any state in which you are allowed to leave there is, by definition, no compromise in freedom or liberty? Is that your assertion?

Pretty much. The opposite is slavery and tyranny.

[Hugo]

Its debatable whether that " one man, one vote, once" is really true but you are always left with a choice to leave if you don't like it. The decision to be part of an Islamic state (or any community) is always left to the individual. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. An individual's freedom/liberty is therefore not compromised at all.

This is simply untrue - one cannot simply decide to go live in the UK or America or the UAE as if one is choosing goods in a supermarket and to offer such a simplistic answer looks like you are avoiding the question and if you cannot make such choices then your freedom/liberty is compromised.

[Froggy]

Its very simple. Go live somewhere else. Society is a lot like a club. If you don't like the rules you are free to find another one.

Why do we see Muslims in Europe constantly complaining about how their rights are violated and whatnot?

[VizierX]

I think you are missing the point, which is that some have nowhere else to go and why should they not be able to protest and bring about changes.

I don't believe that's true. The World is a very big place. And if one wants to protest one would be better served moving to a country that allows protests, no? Nobody is forcing these individual to remain. They are free to leave and find another society more to their liking, anytime. That's called freedom.

It is not a good idea or clever to try to insult me but let me put it this way, do you want a state in Europe that institutionalises sharia as the law of the land or do you regard it as outdated and discriminatory. You might go to Saudi but your chances of becoming a citizen there are nil - why is that do you think.

Why would I want to become a citizen of Saudi Arabia? Its run by a totally corrupt regime propped up by the US. And if Europeans one day decide to opt for Sharia then it will happen. And there are different interpretations of Sharia. There is a lot of diversity within Islamic thought. Stop listening to trolls like Anjem Choudhary.

[VizierX]

Why do we see Muslims in Europe constantly complaining about how their rights are violated and whatnot?

Because maybe according to the Legal Constitutions of their respective countries that may indeed be the case.

[Froggy]

Because maybe according to the Legal Constitutions of their respective countries that may indeed be the case.

Constitutions can be changed and there are many instances where the constitution is not violated and the Muslims still complain.

[titus]

Pretty much. The opposite is slavery and tyranny.

Using that definition then Palestinians are not having their freedom and liberty compromised at all. They are, after all, free to leave if they want.

[Hugo]

Yes you do.. and scholars are formally educated in jurisprudence..

Please answer the questions I posed so we can maintain a clear discussion

of which you extricate yourself when need be and add passages when need be to affirm that you are praying to the same god shbeal.. not only are you confused about what your beliefs should be and completely irresolute leaving us to wonder which parts you deem applicable and which should be thrown out, but you make a rather large leap to question injunctions of which you are completely under-educated.. (which is becoming so status quo for you) I wonder when you might start to feel embarrassed with your ridiculous school boy attempts at intelligent conversation...

I think I explained how such verses are interpreted, must be interpreted, if you don't like the answer that is fine but it is time you understood that your constant barrage of insults only serves to show you have no arguments.

The love of God is implanted in the hearts of true Muslims and your petty attempts at equating liquor with freedom amongst other things will not begin to scratch the surface of that actually means!

It is better if you don't confuse my posts with what others say else we get in a muddle. Can you define a true Muslim and are you one of those with the 'love of God implanted' because your posts and incessant, unremitting contumely and vilification sadly bring dishonour on God and the name of Islam.

[جوري]

Please answer the questions I posed so we can maintain a clear discussion

Just because you don't like the answer given doesn't mean that I more than adequately answered your question!

I think I explained how such verses are interpreted, must be interpreted, if you don't like the answer that is fine but it is time you understood that your constant barrage of insults only serves to show you have no arguments.

I don't understand, are you trying to tickle me? you like putting a spin to verses that are clear as day excerpted without any addendum to the punishment of apostates as per your books.. yet by the same token unable to accept scholarly exegesis by Muslims of their own book. You call that a barrage of insults, and I merely holding up the mirror for you so you can why you come across as an unlearned hypocrite!

It is better if you don't confuse my posts with what others say else we get in a muddle. Can you define a true Muslim and are you one of those with the 'love of God implanted' because your posts and incessant, unremitting contumely and vilification sadly bring dishonour on God and the name of Islam.

A Muslim is one who is able to keep basic commandments.. being a Muslim is the lowest level of piety one can attain..

there is Islam/Iman/Ikhlas/Ihsan.. I don't expect that you should be interested in any of those definitions, I have learned quite clearly what it is you are interested in.. and I don't believe I am dishonoring God by exposing you as a Tartuffe!

all the best

[Skavau]

What makes you think that? I'm not a naturalist. My Worldview ontologically allows for moral realism.

Because I stated that the claim morality being objective is incoherent and your response was (if I remember correctly) something along the lines of "Exactly!"

So I take it that you yourself did not believe also that morality as objective.

What?

I don't know how much simpler I can put this. Earlier on in our little debate you said: "If you break the the rules of your community knowing full well the consequences, then you are fully responsible for the punishment."

Do you believe that if someone understands the rammifications of their actions against the state, that it is their fault and are deserving of it?

For example, the White Rose movement knew precisely what they were getting into it and yet began their campaign anyway - do you think that they deserved any punishments that they had coming to them?

From my Religious perspective or your amoral atheistic perspective?

From your perspective. I am asking you. I'll speak for my own perspective, and it is neither 'atheistic' or 'amoral' when it comes to morality.

It depends upon your moral presuppositions. As a Religious person I can argue that such actions may be objectively wrong. You can't.

You're right (although you yourself also cannot argue that such actions are objectively wrong).

But I can claim they are wrong - and ultimately, that is all that is required to be moral. The foundation of my own understanding of morality is that people's own personal liberty is the only real thing that matters and the only actual thing that morality ought to cater itself towards. The only 'evidence' I need for this is that we all desire to be free. We all desire to live our own lives as we choose free from unwanted intervention or control. Given that we are a social species - things that best assist this are things such as ideals that further and benefit humans co-existing in a group. We should only consider what ought in the context of how it effects others personal freedom.

This has a lot to do with ensuring that our own personal self-interest is met, and indeed might be what morality is based on but I have no problem with this.

I'm referring to Natural Atheism which is the norm. Naturalism ontologically precludes moral realism.

Again, you cannot pretend to understand how people think based on a lack of belief.

Agree with you on your first statement. Very much disagree with you on the second.

You're free to disagree. I expected you would disagree on the second.

The 'God-morality' system is nothing more than an elaborate might equals right system. It is, and can be an enabler to atrocity because it distorts what morality should be about.

I disagree. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to be a member of a community you're going to have to agree to abide by its rules i.e. the "rent". If you don't like the terms of the contract, you are free to leave. This is basic social contract theory.

What part of born into it did you not read?

As I said, if you're born into an Islamic state then you have no say over what you can do and should you desire to apostate you would be forced to leave, possibly secretly and without declaring your position in order to avoid rammifications.

This is not complaining about paying for lunch, this is about complaining about being force-fed.

Well, I believe in God's Law.

So how is that objective? A group of evangelical zealots from the Bible Belt could secede from the United States and decree it 'God's Law'. The rest of us would just look at them funny.

How would you determine it to someone else that does not share your metaphysical viewpoints that indeed, your state is founded on 'God's Law'?

[Skavau]

But, the general consensus of citizens disagrees with the outward ban of alcohol. So one way the sharia compliant government could get around this is by going through stages. 1st step could be a curfew on alcohol (i.e. no drinking after 8 pm). Then, with time, stage 2 occurs: increase the curfew (i.e no drinking after 6 pm). So on and so forth until the prohibition is complete (similar to how alcohol was initially prohibited in Islam).

Again, this is purely for illustrative purposes only. Don't take my words out of context, pleasing.

The end result is still the same though, is it not? The prohibitation of alcohol.

Whether such changes are phased in or not is a matter that is decided in the interests of keeping the peace. The main point I think being uttered here (from my observations) is that in a state where Sharia Law is imposed, in its entirety - there can be no changes to its foundation. It is an authoritarian regime that claims direction from a higher power. Only matters where there is no direct ruling, or no direct answer to social situations can there be change (as you appear to talk about) in the parameters.

I also know from reading Islamic Law though that some of decrees are situational. They can change in times of war and unrest? But I think even with that said: the foundation is still unquestionable.

Then I don't think they would want sharia at all in the first place. Also, if that were the case I doubt the caliphate would say: "sharia can work in this country" so it wouldn't be an issue

Does Sharia rest upon 99.9% of the entire population desiring it? I mean, if it does then it is only a utopian ideal and actually, ironically (by inlarge) not necessary or in my opinion even plausible. If Sharia Law is requested by large swabs of the population, you might argue that they themselves would already live their lives in accordance to it.

I should ask you though: do you believe Muslims ought to work for the global restoration of the caliphate and work for the implementation of Sharia Law in every nation?

[aamirsaab]

Why do we see Muslims in Europe constantly complaining about how their rights are violated and whatnot?

Freedom of speech?

Using that definition then Palestinians are not having their freedom and liberty compromised at all. They are, after all, free to leave if they want.

Where will they go? Boarders are blocked. This is irrelevant anyhow.

The end result is still the same though, is it not? The prohibitation of alcohol.

And? Alcohol has to be prohibited in an Islamic state

...
I also know from reading Islamic Law though that some of decrees are situational. They can change in times of war and unrest? But I think even with that said: the foundation is still unquestionable.

Yes, because it is God's law. There are advantages and disadvantages to all forms of rule.

Does Sharia rest upon 99.9% of the entire population desiring it? I mean, if it does then it is only a utopian ideal and actually, ironically (by inlarge) not necessary or in my opinion even plausible.

In a democratic state a la UK, majority rule would decide. In an Islamic state (i.e. one under muslim rule), the majority is Muslim anyway.

If Sharia Law is requested by large swabs of the population, you might argue that they themselves would already live their lives in accordance to it.

Perhaps but there is logic in the prohibition of say gambling, that society as a whole would benefit from. But it's not just certain laws that would benefit society under sharia. There's also the concept of Qard and public funding, which has economic benefits too. Then there's also animal welfare to consider and so on and so forth. It's not just about the legal system.

I should ask you though: do you believe Muslims ought to work for the global restoration of the caliphate and work for the implementation of Sharia Law in every nation?

Yes to the first part, no to the second. Restoration of a caliphate is a must in order to fix current "Islamic" states. Forget about non-muslim nations. Priority is current Islamic ones.

[Hugo]

I know I do this a lot but can I recommend the following video where Abdur-Raheem Green talks a little bit about this:

I have watched the video suggested by Uthman in post 103 and I offer the following comments.

1. It is a nice presentation and Green speaks clearly and without, it seems to me, rancour.

2. The progression of the 10 minute talk is somewhat odd as the show is called 'Modern Islam' but he begins with a quote from I think Al-Maqasid where he says more or less established rulings are are binding and innovation is blameworthy so one wonders what it might mean to be modern but not suffer any changes? It was to me unclear what this had to do with the substance of his talk.

3. He begins by defining the word Islam; saying it is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience and from this highlights the religious sense of submission to the will of God and obedience to His law.

4. From there he moves to how we know right from wrong and that each of us views the world through a kind of personal prism which may be conditioned by culture, viewpoints, laws, the media, authority, family and so on.

5. He then gets to his central argument that we all have to submit to something in order to live and hence freedom is an illusion. Unfortunately, he does not define freedom so it seems to me he ignores (I will come back to this) that there are always choices, we do not have to submit to everything. Now of course it is understood we have no choice in the matter of natural laws such as gravity and we might have limited choice in man made laws. But I don't think it is true to say that keeping the law is submission to it but more a way of life but one also accepts that some laws may be unjust or we might regard them as discriminatory.

6. The central freedom idea in my view is that of conscience and freedom of thought. Would it be a kind of submission to our own selves to do that and would it be oppression to forbid it? Indeed one can cite many hundreds of examples where freedom of conscience and expression has been denied to both non-Muslims and Muslims alike by the Muslim community in the name of orthodoxy, that is you cannot and must not be critical or re-interpret established doctrine. Islam, as opposed to God, does I think demand a total and it seems to me unthinking submission and for me that is the same as oppression.

7. In summary, Green acknowledges that there is a choice to make, submit to Islam or submit to your own conscience. His plea in a way echoes a Biblical question where Joshua (24:15) asks: "..and if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." There is also another Biblical principle here and summed up in a poem by George Matheson in 1890.

Make me a captive, Lord, and then I shall be free.
Force me to render up my sword, and I shall conqueror be.
I sink in life’s alarms when by myself I stand;
Imprison me within Thine arms, and strong shall be my hand.

It is an odd idea at first glance that being a captive makes you free but it is not so strange when you realise its a relationship based not on law but love - meaning we are willing to submit to God not because of impending punishment but because our love for him can take us no other way. Barclay, perhaps a mite prosaically but honestly put it like this "we do not fear to break his law but rather we fear to break God's heart by our sin"

So is Islam driven by law or love and if you can answer that you can make a choice for Islam or something your mind and conscience say is better.

[titus]

Where will they go? Boarders are blocked. This is irrelevant anyhow.

This was to show how flippant the argument is that there is no compromise of freedom or liberty under Sharia because people are free to leave.

In an Islamic state (i.e. one under muslim rule), the majority is Muslim anyway.

Historically this was often not the case. Muslims often conquered their neighbors and instituted Sharia immediately on the non-Muslims majority.

And what would be the recourse if the population shifted and non-Muslims again became the majority? What would happen, realistically, if a large group of non-Muslims started calling for the end of Sharia law?

[aamirsaab]

...
Historically this was often not the case. Muslims often conquered their neighbors and instituted Sharia immediately on the non-Muslims majority.

Yet the non-muslims stayed. Meaning that particular form of law treated them better than their last one.

And what would be the recourse if the population shifted and non-Muslims again became the majority? What would happen, realistically, if a large group of non-Muslims started calling for the end of Sharia law?

Again, I doubt that would ever happen. But if it did, then they'd probably have to fight the government.

[Froggy]

Yet the non-muslims stayed. Meaning that particular form of law treated them better than their last one.

How many historical examples of an entire people moving out of their homes because of a foreign occupation do you know? Perhaps they simply couldn't leave, so they just lived under Muslims regardless of how they were treated?

[aamirsaab]

How many historical examples of an entire people moving out of their homes because of a foreign occupation do you know? Perhaps they simply couldn't leave, so they just lived under Muslims regardless of how they were treated?

If the new law imposed was bad and the non-muslims (who were majority) didn't want it, they would have revolted against the state. Clearly, that never happened. Ergo, the new law was fine.

[Froggy]

If the new law imposed was bad and the non-muslims (who were majority) didn't want it, they would have revolted against the state. Clearly, that never happened. Ergo, the new law was fine.

It happened constantly in the Balkans.

[Sampharo]

Ahhh, the wonderful days of school. What joy it was to be awakened before dawn, dragged out into the cold, and enjoying so very entertaining and fun classes of algebra, trigonometry, and verb conjugation. When the recess came, everyone was so annoyed, because everyone just wanted to stay in the classroom and read more rules of poetry and history of some kingdom I don't remember its name...

Hold on a second, that doesn't sound right, does it? We HATED waking up in the cold mornings and those classes, and naturally ENJOYED and LOVED the recess.

HOW COME WE WERE MADE TO DO THAT?!?!?!

Some asinine response could be: because it was better for us, to educate us about the World and instill discipline and normality and not mention health. But then our rebuttal should be: "SAYS WHO?! It is our FREEDOM to say no to such ancient neanderthal barbaric treatment of children. We should be left to live in happiness and enjoyment, it's the 21st CENTURY, DUH!! Modern populations don't do such barbaric medieval nonsense."

...

Now maybe this is a different concept to what most people here have been inadvertently or decisively been lead to consider, but it's because equally I do not see where some of the concepts and assumptions being laid out here in this debate as if they were facts, come from:

1- Modern Islam cannot be based on correct Orthodox Islamic Rulings. Modern Islam HAS to be man-adjusted.

the show is called 'Modern Islam' but he begins with a quote from I think Al-Maqasid where he says more or less established rulings are are binding and innovation is blameworthy so one wonders what it might mean to be modern but not suffer any changes?

2- Liberty is to be able to shout "no" and challenge, even if wrong or meaningless. That is the "process" of freedom that people have the right to enjoy.

3- Muslim beliefs don't matter, because non-muslims believe otherwise. Yet Non-muslims beliefs DO matter, and it's unreasonable for muslims not to consider them.


Where exactly is this basis here upon which Liberty as a concept can be defined and communicators are deciding whether Islam allows it or not? More importantly where is this measurement bar by which you're attempting to score Islamic nations as a success or failure? What is failure to one can be success for another, as in the conversation it seems clear that what is right by one's standard, appears staunchly wrong by another.

I cannot help also but notice hidden messages lingering in between the lines, that go around the notion of: "Islam is not letting you choose for yourself, therefore it is stifling, baaaad.... democracy we can do what we want, yeeeeeey". Food for thought I guess to really wonder how logical the expectations are from these suggestions. But every concept needs to be read FULLY in order to see its true side:

"Islam does not allow people to disbelieve in its rulings... without calling them disbelievers."

"Islam does not allow the freedom and liberty for the people to choose the laws they want... without considering them having neglected and negated the laws and rulings already chosen for them"

Black part appears bad for Islam on its own, doesn't it?... Once however you add the blue, any muslim here then understands...

I am not up for these kinds of debates though. I leave it for others. Far better at twisting and arguing and all that. What I am here however is to remind the muslim participants with a few things that they might have forgotten in the trip of exploration (and please forgive me I do not mean to be laying down any law or supervising you, just an important reminder to brothers and sisters in Islam):

A- Islamic law is mostly a direct dictation in the Quran, if not then confirmed rulings by the prophet Mohammed -s.a.a.w.-. As a muslim who declares that God is one, the all-knowing, the just, and Mohammed is his prophet, you would be negating and denying yourself if you think that you can "disagree" with God's laws, the shariah, being the best for mankind, after the Quran said so. It is with unanimous scholarly agreement that believing Shariah law is not necessary, or not the best, scars a muslim's belief and status in Islam and constitutes Kufr.

B- Khalipha Umar -r.a.a.- did indeed introduce the first police force, but that is because the duties of upholding the Shariah laws as well as guarding the streets as well as responding to military threats was the combined duty of all companions of the prophet -s.a.a.w.- in his lifetime, as well as Abu Bakr Assiddique -r.a.a.-. Khalipha Umar only assigned specialized roles. He did not "introduce" law enforcement and therefore have it be argued that maybe indeed Shariah law wasn't being enforced in the lifetime of the prophet.

C- Shariah law is a law for all mankind. It is a tool of living in this World with justice and respect to each other. Right of custody for the mother before the father, inheritance laws guaranteeing a share for a wife, punishment code for thieves and murderers are all part of that code. It is applied in a muslim community upon both muslims as well as non-muslims, not just muslims. If non-muslims are not happy with it and want secular or other laws for their living, they may leave the land that is under Islamic ruling.

So does Islam offer freedom? Yes most certainly it does. Not the type liberals want, which is freedom FROM rules while still being labelled respectable law-abiding people, but yes it does. Will it be like democracy where every person, smart or stupid, saintly or pathologically-criminal, impartial or deviantly invested, gets to decide what works best for the community through selecting compromised regulation?

Thank God it won't in my opinion, but let's not forget that consultation councils to govern the land, and voting for the leader, are Islamic concepts as well. It was advised by the prophet -s.a.a.w.- and applied with the Four Guided Khalifs, especially when the voting was made between Uthman and Ali -r.a.a.-. So don't put too much credit into hailings of Western-style democracy please without realizing that its fundamental benefit and reason for being, is not incompatible with Islam.

[- Qatada -]

A good copy and paste;


Was Islam Spread by the Sword? And isn't the US Foreign Policy the same thing (except with the gun)?

In this formulation the claim was that jihad was better than secular conquest. Unlike Alexander the Great, Mohammed incorporated people in a polity in which they had the option of being saved, in which they had the ability to see for themselves, in which they could choose to become true believers. But it left inner conviction as something over which the individual had full control.

This argument ought to be easy for modern people to understand, or at least Americans, for they also tend to think that war can be legitimated by a high moral purpose - as long as that purpose hasn’t got anything to do with individual faith. The moral purposes they have in mind are wholly secular, not the lower level of religion, and the salvation they talk about is in this world. But they too tend to be eager to rescue other people by enabling them to become more like themselves: richer, freer, more democratic.


What do you do when your fingers are itching to intervene, when you have the power to do it, when you are sure you are right and you are convinced that the victims will be grateful - quite apart from all the advantages that may redound to yourself from intervening? Aren’t you allowed to use force? Indeed, aren’t you obliged to use it? Is it right to save people against their will? Should you force them to be free? If you say yes to these questions, you are in effect a believer in jihad.

“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone

Muslims around the globe who want Islamic law are being restricted, some are tortured, and even fought against, by those who oppose Islamic law and wage war against it. This is in effect a restriction, and not a liberty.


On the other side of the scale, Muslims would place some limitations on other groups for their own belief of the 'greater good' for society as a whole. This would restrict other groups, whilst also giving them an amount of freedom under Islamic rule.



So the whole discussion is subjective and open to interpretation, but the final conclusion is that there is no total liberty for anyone, when they are ruled by any regime or ideology, because the ideology will give preference to their own rules over those who are under them. And that's where the discussion really ends.

[Hugo]

Sampharo made a long and if I may say so rambling post and I cannot quite work out what his position is on the freedom issue but:

.... democracy we can do what we want, yeeeeeey".

This is not of course not correct, that would be anarchy but in a democracy we can be free to think for ourselves and follow the dictates of our conscience without interference from the state and the state would not call upon God to make a ruling.

So does Islam offer freedom? Yes most certainly it does. Not the type liberals want, which is freedom FROM rules while still being labelled respectable law-abiding people, but yes it does. Will it be like democracy where every person, smart or stupid, saintly or pathologically-criminal, impartial or deviantly invested, gets to decide what works best for the community through selecting compromised regulation?

Freedom for who? It is quite clear that Islam does not treat people alike and so anyone not a Muslim is regarded as second class and of course one can list other examples of its discriminatory nature

[جوري]

Sampharo made a long and if I may say so rambling post

That is exactly how we feel about most of yours posts.. no structure or coherence or relevance and sadly irreconcilable with your own chosen set of beliefs!

all the best

[Hugo]

Muslims around the globe who want Islamic law are being restricted, some are tortured, and even fought against, by those who oppose Islamic law and wage war against it. This is in effect a restriction, and not a liberty.

Can you give examples please or sites that monitor such things. There are plenty that monitor and record what people who call themselves Muslim do to others.

On the other side of the scale, Muslims would place some limitations on other groups for their own belief of the 'greater good' for society as a whole. This would restrict other groups, whilst also giving them an amount of freedom under Islamic rule.

So the whole discussion is subjective and open to interpretation, but the final conclusion is that there is no total liberty for anyone, when they are ruled by any regime or ideology, because the ideology will give preference to their own rules over those who are under them. And that's where the discussion really ends.

NO NO this is where it begins, freedom is something that must be defended and the moment we say it does not matter because everything is relative is the moment we lose it. That is why we have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But of course Muslims don't agree with it so must have their own which amongst other things means that the UDHR with regard to religious freedom is set aside.

Cannot you see how arrogant and sinister your words are "whilst also giving them an amount of freedom under Islamic rule" - why does Islam have to give' me anything, the freedoms we have been talking about here are human rights and are not in the gift of Islam or indeed anyone or anything. If Islam were for freedom its would fight for the right of anyone to have religious liberty or atheism for to do anything else is oppression.

[AlbanianMuslim]

I am pretty sure Prophet Muhammad pbuh was a man who encouraged tolerance of other religions. But then of course, after he passed away, greedy men took over and systematically weakened the ummah by their greed.

[Sampharo]

Sampharo made a long and if I may say so rambling post and I cannot quite work out what his position is on the freedom issue

That is because you are deluding yourself that this is your own platform of collecting views for your own pleasure and perusal, where you think we either approve of you or else we're unreasonable.

This is not of course not correct,

Double negative friend. It is amazing when the nervous defensiveness at loss of face and credibility kicks in, truthful words come out.

in a democracy we can be free to think for ourselves and follow the dictates of our conscience without interference from the state

Absolute falsehold that is so rediculous it doesn't deserve a rebuttal. The only thing that you are left to think for yourself is your personal actions of worship and social behaviour, everything that religion dictates. EVERYTHING else is enforced upon the people: Up to 50% of income as taxes? Justice in exchange for truckloads of money? Drug offenders let off for just giving information? Banks destroying people's lives, gas prices, patented crops... You have no say in any of this stuff. You are only left to do what you want regarding nudist beaches, drinking your head off at any pub, having sex with every living thing, and worshiping a bent bush in your back yard while applying for a church license.

So in the end, you're just a pissed off liberal who's angry about a code of ethics that can identify the person as a degenerate if one performs... degenerate acts.

the state would not call upon God to make a ruling.

Sarcastic remark that proves the point I made earlier "Muslim beliefs don't matter, because non-muslims believe otherwise." and when you say:

It is quite clear that Islam does not treat people alike and so anyone not a Muslim is regarded as second class

that is what I meant by: "Yet Non-muslims beliefs DO matter, and it's unreasonable for muslims not to consider them."

So when you find someone to solve your self-contradictions, the end result is as plain and simple as a non-believer who wants to do whatever they want because they don't believe these laws are from God, and further wants to disrespect those who do believe in them by demanding that they do not apply it upon their community.

You will of course say: "But I DON'T believe in them and so I shouldn't abide by them as a non-muslim" to which we answer by the same statement of secular countries:

If you do not wish to abide by these laws, then leave these lands.

If you don't like Islamic laws, don't live in Islamic states. You can go and revive Sodom and Gamoura or setup a loansharking business for all we care.

But if you live in a land of Islam, you will be protected from drunken hooligans and muggers, and will not have a tax man collecting half of your money. However, you are also required to abide by the laws which include not working as a pimp, not running a loansharking business, and if you kill someone maliciously and it's proven you did without an excuse or fear for your life, you will receive the capital punishment, not 30 years living on the tax dollars of other people whose father you killed.

[Hugo]

That is because you are deluding yourself that this is your own platform of collecting views for your own pleasure and perusal, where you think we either approve of you or else we're unreasonable.

This is a typical Muslim response, everyone else is deluded but you and who is this "we" you are speaking of here - is it a further delusion that you speak for a whole community?

Absolute falsehold that is so rediculous it doesn't deserve a rebuttal. The only thing that you are left to think for yourself is your personal actions of worship and social behaviour, everything that religion dictates. EVERYTHING else is enforced upon the people: Up to 50% of income as taxes? Justice in exchange for truckloads of money? Drug offenders let off for just giving information? Banks destroying people's lives, gas prices, patented crops... You have no say in any of this stuff. You are only left to do what you want regarding nudist beaches, drinking your head off at any pub, having sex with every living thing, and worshiping a bent bush in your back yard while applying for a church license.

This is just nonsense, you are just taken in by your own propaganda - I like everyone else can have a voice in what happens, I might not like all that happens but at least I can say I don't like it. I can express my opinions freely and I am free to partake of religion or not, I can say I think the Qu'ran is full of fable or the Bible is not relevant without someone locking me up or worse.

If I may say so you have listed above everything that your blinded mind sees as negative without once considering a positive aspect - hardly an open minded view is it. I have spent a lot of time in the Middle east and I have seen drunkenness, prostitution, child molesting, fraud and cheating, injustice for money etc. Sin is not confined to Democracies is it?

So in the end, you're just a pissed off liberal who's angry about a code of ethics that can identify the person as a degenerate if one performs... degenerate acts

If you are an example of a good Muslim why is it that you here use language publically that is both vulgar and uncouth and not within the rules of this board. I wonder who really can see the degenerate here - there is nothing in God's sight more blameworthy than self-righteousness.

So when you find someone to solve your self-contradictions, the end result is as plain and simple as a non-believer who wants to do whatever they want because they don't believe these laws are from God, and further wants to disrespect those who do believe in them by demanding that they do not apply it upon their community.

Again you just resort to common Muslim propaganda that freedom to a Westerner means they can do whatever they like. Why do I have to believe Muslim Law is from God simply because you say so and it is not disrespect to have a different and even opposite opinion - that perhaps is at the heart of the freedom issue with Islam in that it cannot tolerate critical opinion so brands it as hate or disrespect.

But if you live in a land of Islam, you will be protected from drunken hooligans and muggers, and will not have a tax man collecting half of your money. However, you are also required to abide by the laws which include not working as a pimp, not running a loansharking business, and if you kill someone maliciously and it's proven you did without an excuse or fear for your life, you will receive the capital punishment, not 30 years living on the tax dollars of other people whose father you killed.

Obviously you are talking about some mythical never never land - go and look at say Iran where there are said to be 100,000 prostitutes in Tehran alone, go to Saudi Arabia and find out about the predatory nature of homosexuals there - I have said this before but the worst position to take for any state is to start out by saying they are free from sin.

[VizierX]

This is simply untrue - one cannot simply decide to go live in the UK or America or the UAE as if one is choosing goods in a supermarket and to offer such a simplistic answer looks like you are avoiding the question and if you cannot make such choices then your freedom/liberty is compromised.

Actually that is exactly the case. There are over 200 choices in the free market of nations.

[VizierX]

Using that definition then Palestinians are not having their freedom and liberty compromised at all. They are, after all, free to leave if they want.

You obviously don't know much about the conflict then. The Palestinians were violently colonised and ethnically cleansed by European invaders (a gross breach of their liberty). The ones that remain are stuck in a brutal, apartheid-like occupation and they aren't free to move in or out.. Gaza has been describes as the world's largest open-air prison. So don't tell me that their liberty has not been breached.

[Hugo]

Actually that is exactly the case. There are over 200 choices in the free market of nations.

Originally Posted by Hugo
This is simply untrue - one cannot simply decide to go live in the UK or America or the UAE as if one is choosing goods in a supermarket and to offer such a simplistic answer looks like you are avoiding the question and if you cannot make such choices then your freedom/liberty is compromised.

Perhaps I should have been more precise, one can make a choice to go say to the UK but whether it happens or not is not simply based on your choice.

[titus]

I am just going by your criteria, that if they can leave and go somewhere else then their liberties are not being breached.

Are Palestinians not allowed to travel abroad? They can get passports which are accepted around the world.

Therefore, according to your very own definition their liberties are not being breached since they can move away. In fact tens of thousands have immigrated to the United States alone.

[Hugo]

You obviously don't know much about the conflict then. The Palestinians were violently colonised and ethnically cleansed by European invaders (a gross breach of their liberty). The ones that remain are stuck in a brutal, apartheid-like occupation and they aren't free to move in or out.. Gaza has been describes as the world's largest open-air prison. So don't tell me that their liberty has not been breached.

This might be true but is it not also true that that Muslim invaders did exactly the same things in the first Islamic centuries - a gross breach of liberty in much the same way that you say for Palestinians. We need to be even handed because if invasion is wrong now it always was.

[VizierX]

Because I stated that the claim morality being objective is incoherent and your response was (if I remember correctly) something along the lines of "Exactly!"

From your perspective, yes.

So I take it that you yourself did not believe also that morality as objective.

No, I believe morality is objective. My Worldview grants me that.

For example, the White Rose movement knew precisely what they were getting into it and yet began their campaign anyway - do you think that they deserved any punishments that they had coming to them?

I already explained that the Nazi oppression of Jews was unjust. So the White rose movement were justified in acting. As I said:

"Jews were simply being targeted in virtue of what they are, not due to any actions or crimes they committed. They had no choice in the matter. There is a fundamental difference between that and, say, being punished due to committing public apostasy in a community where it is illegal. So your Godwin attempt simply fails."

But this is all besides the point. From you natural atheistic perspective there was nothing objectively wrong about what the Nazis were doing.

From your perspective. I am asking you. I'll speak for my own perspective, and it is neither 'atheistic' or 'amoral' when it comes to morality.

I told you. I believe in God's Laws. AS for your own perspective you morality is totally subjective and the product of whim.

But I can claim they are wrong - and ultimately, that is all that is required to be moral.

I can claim that banana ice cream is wrong and immoral too.

The foundation of my own understanding of morality is that people's own personal liberty is the only real thing that matters and the only actual thing that morality ought to cater itself towards.

That's just your subjective opinion. From a naturalistic perspective, there is no law of the universe that states that personal liberty is valuable and should be the foundation for morality. You've just arbitrarily made that up.

The only 'evidence' I need for this is that we all desire to be free.

You're equating desirable=good. There is no logical basis for this. One could equally claim desirable=bad.

We all desire to live our own lives as we choose free from unwanted intervention or control. Given that we are a social species - things that best assist this are things such as ideals that further and benefit humans co-existing in a group. We should only consider what ought in the context of how it effects others personal freedom.

Why is Human coexistance an objective value? Any statement asserting that it is is necessarily arbitrary in a naturalistic world-view. In short, your morality is arbitrary and irrational.

This has a lot to do with ensuring that our own personal self-interest is met, and indeed might be what morality is based on but I have no problem with this.

Same criticism applies. See above.

Again, you cannot pretend to understand how people think based on a lack of belief.

Naturalism is a positive metaphysical stance about the nature of reality. I'm not referring to agnosticism. Atheism by the way is a positive claim, not merely an absence of belief.

The 'God-morality' system is nothing more than an elaborate might equals right system. It is, and can be an enabler to atrocity because it distorts what morality should be about.

That's a very naive understanding of theistic morality.

What part of born into it did you not read? As I said, if you're born into an Islamic state then you have no say over what you can do and should you desire to apostate you would be forced to leave, possibly secretly and without declaring your position in order to avoid rammifications.

It makes no difference. If I was born and brought up in a rented flat, I'd still have to pay the rent after my parents die.

This is not complaining about paying for lunch, this is about complaining about being force-fed.

Stop being so hyperbolic. The door is always open. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

So how is that objective?

By definition, it is.

A group of evangelical zealots from the Bible Belt could secede from the United States and decree it 'God's Law'. The rest of us would just look at them funny.

So what?

How would you determine it to someone else that does not share your metaphysical viewpoints that indeed, your state is founded on 'God's Law'?

You can't without accepting the Religious individual's premises.

[VizierX]

I am just going by your criteria, that if they can leave and go somewhere else then their liberties are not being breached.

Are Palestinians not allowed to travel abroad? They can get passports which are accepted around the world.

Therefore, according to your very own definition their liberties are not being breached since they can move away. In fact tens of thousands have immigrated to the United States alone.

The ones that have managed to leave are the lucky ones. Most Palestinians are in a position no better than caged animals. They can't just get a passport and leave. The borders are blocked.

[VizierX]

This might be true but is it not also true that that Muslim invaders did exactly the same things in the first Islamic centuries - a gross breach of liberty in much the same way that you say for Palestinians. We need to be even handed because if invasion is wrong now it always was.

Actually most of the Middle East under Byzantine rule wanted the Muslims to intervene since they were being Religiously persecuted by the Byzantines (they were adherents of Arianism which was considered heretical).

[Uthman]

I'm sorry but this thread appears to have degenerated into insults and seems to have become a vehicle for some to criticise and attack Islamic beliefs and values.

This isn't acceptable as far as the forum rules are concerned so this thread will now be closed. Please direct any objections to the HelpDesk.

:threadclo