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.
After discussions with the moderators I am proposing a new thread with the perhaps provocative title 'Liberty and Islam'. In keeping with my usual practise I will begin with a general discussion of what liberty or we can say freedom might mean. Please comment or add your own ideas BUT please keep postings:
On topic
No more that about one screen full at a time.
With a font size to about 12
Free of inserts that take several pages thus ensuring that no one reads them.
1. The English dictionary defines liberty and freedom in very similar ways and typically as immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority, freedom of choice meaning freedom to chose ones occupation, liberty of opinion, liberty of worship and liberty of thoughts and feelings. I suppose underpinning these idea is that we exist in a condition to all of the above without externally imposed restraints. In contrast, freedom does not mean I think that we can think, and say and do anything without restraint or concern for others; and indeed we have a word for that called anarchy.
2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:
The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.
In Saudi Arabia or Iran for examples you cannot freely import and distribute Bibles or a list of other books.
Wikipedia was supposed to give us all freedom but like many other innovations on the web they are increasingly being taken over by a small number of very large corporations or manipulated by governments.
3. Thomas Paine in his book 'On Liberty' had I think the right idea and that was that liberty is only guarded when the people can set limits to the power rulers or governments are able to exercise over its peoples. This was done in two ways:
Granting certain immunities or you can say political rights and it would be a breach of the duty for the ruler or government to infringe and do do so would justify resistance and rebellion.
Secondly, establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community or or body of some sort was required.
Western Governments for the most part long ago adopted democracy as the best mode for setting limits and creating constitutional checks and of course the separation of church and state.
4. Finally, in this first post, I mention theocracies such as Iran or Saudi Arabia where one supposes limits are set by God. However, there does not seem to be any compelling evidence that theocracies such as these work any better than democracies or anything else and history seems to show them often to be despotic and averse to basic freedoms and because they always claim God is on their side almost totally intolerant to dissent. This does not mean that liberal democracies cannot be intolerant but at least its citizens can voice an opinion and its rulers cannot claim any kind of God given infallibility.
The evidence that theocracies work is the government of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and his next 4 followers. The evidence that if theocracy of Saudi is not working, its because its not really an Islamic theocracy and a dictator King is a ruler which actually is not from Islam. Its time to stop generalizing Islamic theocracy with dictatorship of a King.
Talking of liberty, I am not sure if humans can ever be free. They are slaves to biochemicals for living. In the same way, Islamic government has the right to ensure that books such as the NT and the God Delusion do not get spread in its localities to laymen people. At the same time, its upon the Muslim scholars to review these books and write critiques on an international arena.
Last edited by CosmicPathos; 02-06-2010 at 06:28 PM.
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
May I ask what does this all have to do with Islam? Maybe I was expecting this thread to be about the liberty that Islam gives... (just wanting a clear pic)
2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:
The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.
I have lived in Saudi Arabia for four years. Our neighbors were Lebanese maronite christians with a bible and santa clause and the works, so I have no idea where you get the idea that you 'get burned' for having a bible..
however, there is no room for proselytizing in KSA and how I admire them for it.. I can't stand christian missionaries and their smarmy style:
Media Tags are no longer supported
Frankly I don't think that is acceptable anywhere not just KSA.. btw, how is proselytizing to Christianity working in the west? I'd start selling the man/god shbeal here before I expand into other regions..
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
May I ask what does this all have to do with Islam? Maybe I was expecting this thread to be about the liberty that Islam gives... (just wanting a clear pic)
Please be aware that in my first post I was not taking sides but simply outlining some ideas for open discussion so we have some context for the thread.
However, this is a useful question and so I offer this clarification. It has to do with Islam because one cannot assume that because a country is Muslim it necessarily guarantees the freedoms discussed in my first post. Indeed we have seen from post number 2 that it is suggested as being at least questionable whether Saudi Arabia is anything more than a dictatorship - well that is how I understand Wa7abiScientist's post?
It maybe that in your eyes Islam gives liberty but I suppose I would say that liberty has nevertheless to be protected so whether we are Muslim or not we have to be ever vigilant for the trouble is that we might not want to speak out about an abuse of liberty because someone is a Muslim or the country is Muslim or because it might brings shame on Islam.
I find no shame in stopping missionaries.. I find all the shame in the missionaries who go into areas say "Haiti' and kidnap children for God knows what purposes and put it under the banner of goodness and righteousness:
frankly I find them creepy and I think any sovereign nation has a right to protect its citizens against these human predators .. when there is a threat it should be warded, there is no room to call it freedom or whatever else.
If creeps like that were coming to my home and after my children I'd take the first weapon I can find and blow their heads off!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I have lived in Saudi Arabia for four years. Our neighbors were Lebanese maronite christians with a bible and santa clause and the works, so I have no idea where you get the idea that you 'get burned' for having a bible..
I have asked that you keep to the point, nowhere in my post do I suggest that people get burned in Saudi Arabia for having a Bible, so please read the post which clearly states that people were burned for having NTs in the inquisition and in England SEVERAL centuries ago.
@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.
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
Please be aware that in my first post I was not taking sides but simply outlining some ideas for open discussion so we have some context for the thread.
I never assumed you did
However, this is a useful question and so I offer this clarification. It has to do with Islam because one cannot assume that because a country is Muslim it necessarily guarantees the freedoms discussed in my first post.
Sure, but Islam is a religion and I suppose this doesn't have to do with religion, does it?
It maybe that in your eyes Islam gives liberty
Islam definitely does guarantee the freedoms discussed in your first post.
but I suppose I would say that liberty has nevertheless to be protected so whether we are Muslim or not we have to be ever vigilant
I agree
for the trouble is that we might not want to speak out about an abuse of liberty because someone is a Muslim or the country is Muslim or because it might brings shame on Islam.
No wonder... because after something is heard being done by a muslim or in a muslim environment people connect it with Islam/muslims directly... unfortunately.
The evidence that theocracies work is the government of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and his next 4 followers. The evidence that if theocracy of Saudi is not working, its because its not really an Islamic theocracy and a dictator King is a ruler which actually is not from Islam. Its time to stop generalizing Islamic theocracy with dictatorship of a King.
This might be true but it was a nascent and small community and cannot necessarily be properly compared to a modern nation state so there is no good reason to think that what worked then will work now - least that is how I see it. One might point out also that it was not long before someone was assassinated was it? But the issue for this thread is was that nascent community one in which freedom was encouraged and exercised?
Talking of liberty, I am not sure if humans can ever be free. They are slaves to biochemicals for living. In the same way, Islamic government has the right to ensure that books such as the NT and the God Delusion do not get spread in its localities to laymen people. At the same time, its upon the Muslim scholars to review these books and write critiques on an international arena.
Freedom always has limits and that is part of its definition and as you say, we all have to eat, sleep and eventually die.
But your point about 'rights' to impose let's call it censorship is an intolerant position that denies information and knowledge and assumes that only the 'scholars' knows how to deal with it. Why I ask do you want to deny access, are you afraid of these books, afraid that the 'layman' will discover truth for themselves? How would you react I wonder if I suggested banning the Qu'ran?
The trouble with truth is that it is, often is, uncomfortable because it can challenge our deepest beliefs. Knowledge it seems in your eyes is a terrible and dangerous thing except for the few because once you have it there is no going back and if you personally want to not bother with these books that is fine but I find it sad not to say objectionable that you want and would stop others reading them and your designation 'laymen' seems to imply that you have no high opinion of their intelligence. If that is the Islamic position then it is I think against liberty and is tantamount to an admission that Islam cannot stand unless it suppresses knowledge. You might like to consider what Karl Popper said in 1943
For those who have eaten of the tree of knowledge, paradise is lost. The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the Inquisition, at the secret police, and at a romanticised gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human
After discussions with the moderators I am proposing a new thread with the perhaps provocative title 'Liberty and Islam'. In keeping with my usual practise I will begin with a general discussion of what liberty or we can say freedom might mean. Please comment or add your own ideas BUT please keep postings:
On topic
No more that about one screen full at a time.
With a font size to about 12
Free of inserts that take several pages thus ensuring that no one reads them.
1. The English dictionary defines liberty and freedom in very similar ways and typically as immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority, freedom of choice meaning freedom to chose ones occupation, liberty of opinion, liberty of worship and liberty of thoughts and feelings. I suppose underpinning these idea is that we exist in a condition to all of the above without externally imposed restraints. In contrast, freedom does not mean I think that we can think, and say and do anything without restraint or concern for others; and indeed we have a word for that called anarchy.
2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:
The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.
In Saudi Arabia or Iran for examples you cannot freely import and distribute Bibles or a list of other books.
Wikipedia was supposed to give us all freedom but like many other innovations on the web they are increasingly being taken over by a small number of very large corporations or manipulated by governments.
3. Thomas Paine in his book 'On Liberty' had I think the right idea and that was that liberty is only guarded when the people can set limits to the power rulers or governments are able to exercise over its peoples. This was done in two ways:
Granting certain immunities or you can say political rights and it would be a breach of the duty for the ruler or government to infringe and do do so would justify resistance and rebellion.
Secondly, establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community or or body of some sort was required.
Western Governments for the most part long ago adopted democracy as the best mode for setting limits and creating constitutional checks and of course the separation of church and state.
4. Finally, in this first post, I mention theocracies such as Iran or Saudi Arabia where one supposes limits are set by God. However, there does not seem to be any compelling evidence that theocracies such as these work any better than democracies or anything else and history seems to show them often to be despotic and averse to basic freedoms and because they always claim God is on their side almost totally intolerant to dissent. This does not mean that liberal democracies cannot be intolerant but at least its citizens can voice an opinion and its rulers cannot claim any kind of God given infallibility.
Plato had the right idea when he said it's foolish to give the masses power to influence Government but that's besides the point!
Islam is not based on liberty. Slavery is legal in Islam and there is no freedom of expression. You cannot dress in whatever way you want. This not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly academic freedom being limited is a BAD thing.
Islam definitely does guarantee the freedoms discussed in your first post.
We shall come to this many times in this thread but in view of what you said here what is your position on banning the books cited in an earlier post namely the NT and The God Delusion. Would you, would Islam guarantee my freedom to read them?
@Hugo: Saudi Arabia regulates and censors its internet. I do not see this is as restricting liberty. I actually value such activities and would help the department at King Saud uni to censor sites which they are not aware of. If you have problem with such attitudes, well, dont live in Saudi.
You might not consider this liberty, but this is liberty for us. Liberating people from evil ideas by stopping their access to such material. Who gave the government the right to do so? Technically, Islamic Ameer has the rights to censor infiltration of kufr ideas into dar ul islam.
I think I see your point and some sites such a pornographic or those advocating violence I think I would support a ban. But this thread is not about where I might or might not live its about I think principles of liberty.
Censoring the internet is probably a losing battle and I would advocate learning not banning as a way forward. There is no more certain way to ensure that a book gets circulated and read than to ban it. Take 'My Uncle Napoleon' written by an Iranian and promptly banned after the revolution but now it is said to be in every Iranian's home and has sold huge numbers in the West and is easily the most popular modern book in Iran inn the world - its sin? it pokes fun at pomposity.
Why do people have to be protected from ideas YOU see as bad as if the average Muslim is some kind of educational and intellectual idiot. For example, you said I think ban the NT at least entering Saudi yet what is wrong with the following extract, what pernicious kufr evil could possible come from it?
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
We shall come to this many times in this thread but in view of what you said here what is your position on banning the books cited in an earlier post namely the NT and The God Delusion. Would you, would Islam guarantee my freedom to read them?
If a person wants to read the NT/The God Delusion then he should be free to do so. Islam undoubtably gives the freedom to believe and act the way one wishes. There are countless verses of the Qur'aan that state this. So absolutely yes.
“And say: “The truth is from your Lord.” Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” [al-Kahf 18:29]
“Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful” [al-Insaan 76:3]
“So, whosoever wills, let him seek a place with (or a way to) His Lord (by obeying Him in this worldly life)!” [al-Naba’ 78:39]
“Among you are some that desire this world and some that desire the Hereafter” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:152]
Certainly academic freedom being limited is a BAD thing.
And we see a wonderful example of that when Pope Alexander IV banned the philosophy books of Ibn Rushd claiming them incompatible with religious beliefs.
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Plato had the right idea when he said it's foolish to give the masses power to influence Government but that's besides the point!
Islam is not based on liberty. Slavery is legal in Islam and there is no freedom of expression. You cannot dress in whatever way you want. This not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly academic freedom being limited is a BAD thing.
Could you please not hijack the thread? I hope to have a respectful discussion with the other members such as Hugo and not a discussion about your speculation or conclution/stereotypes. Please don't take it in a bad way
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.
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
Yep, it's always sad when a thinker is silenced or his work is censored. Especially someone with Ibn Rushd's caliber. Thankfully, Europe's insanity hadn't stopped the Muslims from preserving great works such as ibn sina's and ibn Rushd's, etc. !
Last edited by Lynx; 02-07-2010 at 12:57 AM.
Reason: typo
Could you please not hijack the thread? I hope to have a respectful discussion with the other members such as Hugo and not a discussion about your speculation or conclution/stereotypes. Please don't take it in a bad way
But my post is entirely about liberty and Islam. I said Islam isn't founded upon liberty in the sense that democratic western countries are and that this is not necessarily a bad thing :s
But my post is entirely about liberty and Islam. I said Islam isn't founded upon liberty in the sense that democratic western countries are and that this is not necessarily a bad thing :s
western liberty, freedom & democracy can only be demonstrated in full effect only if you are in total agreement with western ideals. of course if you oppose them you are hunted down like a dog and silenced by the best barrage fire the modern world can offer... It is a funny thing.. liberty and democracy should denote that your tolerance doesn't apply only to those who share your values and, further, conceive them the way you do, for you will be making mockery of tolerance & freedom, which is by definition readiness to coexist peacefully with those who do not share your values.
Thus in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims continue to live peacefully among Muslims.
A large excerpt of the above is written by a Muslim philosopher and professor currently haunted and labeled by the west as a 'terrorist wahabi'
curious world!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
western liberty, freedom & democracy can only be demonstrated in full effect only if you are in total agreement with western ideals. of course if you oppose them you are hunted down like a dog and silenced by the best barrage fire the modern world can offer... It is a funny thing.. liberty and democracy should denote that your tolerance doesn't apply only to those who share your values and, further, conceive them the way you do, for you will be making mockery of tolerance & freedom, which is by definition readiness to coexist peacefully with those who do not share your values.
Thus in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims continue to live peacefully among Muslims.
A large excerpt of the above is written by a Muslim philosopher and professor currently haunted and labeled by the west as a 'terrorist wahabi'
curious world!
all the best
I agree with almost everything you said there. Another example of Western liberal democratic values being enforced on people who did share that belief is the persecution of communist-types during the cold war era. History tells us that people were really persecuted for being sympathetic with the Marxist cause. As cliche as it may be, Muslims are the new 'reds' of this time period and it's probably natural for there always to be a group that is labelled as 'dangerous' (before the commies it was the Japs, etc..). In any case I guess a question I'd ask you is if you think there should be academic dissent from Islam or critiques of it for the sake of determining truth (since the dissenters are obviously not Muslim or critical types).
Edit: something i forgot: Proper and true democratic liberalism Is stil possible though it just hasn't been applied properly yet. But I mean IT IS possible that a liberal system free from hypocricies like the ones we both brought up might arise. Though I would never in a 100 years support a John Stuart Mill type of state where it is ideally liberal.
Last edited by Lynx; 02-07-2010 at 01:27 AM.
Reason: adding
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