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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
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.
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)
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?
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.
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)
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?
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.
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)
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?
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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.
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)
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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)
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
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