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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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?
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.
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!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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?
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.
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
No, I don't!
..Why?
I'll add to that: Do you think any ideology can be sincere?
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.
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.
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.
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by _muslim_
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
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?
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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.
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
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?
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