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.
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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
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
Last edited by جوري; 02-07-2010 at 02:12 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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
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.
Last edited by CosmicPathos; 02-07-2010 at 02:46 AM.
Help me to escape from this existence
I yearn for an answer... can you help me?
I'm drowning in a sea of abused visions and shattered dreams
In somnolent illusion... I'm paralyzed
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
[COLOR="Black"][SIZE="2"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]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!
For a guy who finds it difficult to engage me, you sure never make yourself scarce!
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks