Islam and Liberty?

**Hugo** · 02-06-2010

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.

**aamirsaab** · 02-19-2010

Originally Posted by Froggy

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

Freedom of speech?

Originally Posted by titus

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

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

Originally Posted by Skavau

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

And? Alcohol has to be prohibited in an Islamic state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Hugo** · 02-19-2010

Originally Posted by Uthmān

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**titus** · 02-19-2010

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

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

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

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

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

**aamirsaab** · 02-19-2010

Originally Posted by titus

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

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

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

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

**Froggy** · 02-19-2010

Originally Posted by aamirsaab

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

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

**aamirsaab** · 02-19-2010

Originally Posted by Froggy

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

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

**Froggy** · 02-19-2010

Originally Posted by aamirsaab

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

It happened constantly in the Balkans.

**Sampharo** · 02-19-2010

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

Originally Posted by hugo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**- Qatada -** · 02-19-2010

A good copy and paste;

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

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

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

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

“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone

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

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

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

**Hugo** · 02-20-2010

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

Originally Posted by Sampharo

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

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

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

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

**جوري** · 02-20-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

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

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

all the best

**Hugo** · 02-20-2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

**AlbanianMuslim** · 02-20-2010

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

**Sampharo** · 02-20-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

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

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

This is not of course not correct,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Hugo** · 02-20-2010

Originally Posted by Sampharo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**VizierX** · 02-20-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

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

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

**VizierX** · 02-20-2010

Originally Posted by titus

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

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

**Hugo** · 02-20-2010

Originally Posted by VizierX

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

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

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

**titus** · 02-20-2010

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

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

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

**Hugo** · 02-20-2010

Originally Posted by VizierX

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

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