Islam and Liberty?

[Hugo]

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!

Sadly there is and its called anarchy!

You are educated in sharia'a .. wow we should applaud you.. which esteemed university did you graduate to be so well learned & spoken?

Do you have to go to University to understand sharia? Funny, as most of the scholars who wrote it did not go to or belong to one. By implication of your words, the vast majority are forever unable to understand the law and that must diminish its value since it would have no practical value

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - 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?

Not entirely sure what point you are making here as it is a fact that the Jewish Rabbis prided themselves on almost never exercising the death penalty and they used to have a saying about it 'not once in 70 years' but nevertheless took seriously the injunction to purge evil from among them but saw that this was about teaching and example not killing by stoning.

 

[جوري]

Sadly there is and its called anarchy!

I guess you are not happy under any circumstance!

Do you have to go to University to understand sharia? Funny, as most of the scholars who wrote it did not go to or belong to one. By implication of your words, the vast majority are forever unable to understand the law and that must diminish its value since it would have no piratical value

Yes you do.. and scholars are formally educated in jurisprudence..
Are you able to pass laws or understand them in the U.S or any other without proper avenues?
and to contrast does your neighbor telling you to take a couple of aspirins for your headache denotes understanding beyond what a headache is? will taking two aspirins help you with headache caused by Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura? Maybe we should all be lawyers and doctors and engineers, what is the point at all of being appropriately educated?

Not entirely sure what point you are making here as it is a fact that the Jewish Rabbis prided themselves on almost never exercising the death penalty and they used to have a saying about it 'not once in 70 years' but nevertheless took seriously the injunction to purge evil from among them but saw that this was about teaching and example not killing by stoning.

The point is, that apostasy and its punishment exists in the previous scriptures and not as your desire but as is written and appropriately quoted.. of which you extricate yourself when need be and add passages when need be to affirm that you are praying to the same god shbeal.. not only are you confused about what your beliefs should be and completely irresolute leaving us to wonder which parts you deem applicable and which should be thrown out, but you make a rather large leap to question injunctions of which you are completely under-educated.. (which is becoming so status quo for you) I wonder when you might start to feel embarrassed with your ridiculous school boy attempts at intelligent conversation...

Try for instance to read how men went out and drowned the streets of medina in liquor upon the injunction and contrast it to the American prohibition which sent thousands to jail, wasted millions, and made sick thousands of others who were making unhygienic moon shine at home..

The love of God is implanted in the hearts of true Muslims and your petty attempts at equating liquor with freedom amongst other things will not begin to scratch the surface of that actually means!

all the best

 

[Uthman]

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

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRwMN1xnBA&feature=PlayList&p=436505A241885FFC&index=10[/media]
​

 

[aamirsaab]

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.

Partially right, Democratic rule also means you have a say in the matter. As far as anti terrorism laws go into it, you didn't.

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.

This is why I said a caliphate is in charge of which country can or cannot have sharia law BASED on the SOCIAL CONTEXT. At a fundemental level, sharia law cannot enter the majority of the western world, simply because of social context: religion and present societal culture do not mix particularly well. It would be the most retarded thing to introduce sharia into the current western world. And this is coming from someone who is in support for sharia!

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?

No, that society had changed and progressed since the first Islamic state. You know, like today? Why are you pot shotting anyway? Hidden agenda perhaps?

But it is now!

In Islamic countries, yes that is the case because they have the relevant Islamic history, where alcohol has been prohibited for quite some time.

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.

Apostasy has been covered many times on this forum (and I already told you it doesn't always apply). I'm not dealing with specific laws, you can use the search function.

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

I already gave you several examples of where change can occur in an Islamic state. I'm not into long and drawn out arguments especially when I explained it perfectly clear THE FIRST TIME. There are certain things that Islam won't budge on because they are core issues (adultery, alcohol, pork, gambling - the big 4). But, not all things a la polygamous marriage in cases of low male ratio, zakat in cases of famine and so on.

 

[VizierX]

So you yourself, even with the assumption of Islam do not believe that morality is objective?

What makes you think that? I'm not a naturalist. My Worldview ontologically allows for moral realism.

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?

What?

Are dictators blameless and free from responsibility as long as they are concise about their rules?

From my Religious perspective or your amoral atheistic perspective?

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).

It depends upon your moral presuppositions. As a Religious person I can argue that such actions may be objectively wrong. You can't.

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'm referring to Natural Atheism which is the norm. Naturalism ontologically precludes moral realism.

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).

Agree with you on your first statement. Very much disagree with you on the second.

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.

I disagree. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to be a member of a community you're going to have to agree to abide by its rules i.e. the "rent". If you don't like the terms of the contract, you are free to leave. This is basic social contract theory.

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?

Well, I believe in God's Law.

 

[VizierX]

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?

Its debatable whether that " one man, one vote, once" is really true but you are always left with a choice to leave if you don't like it. The decision to be part of an Islamic state (or any community) is always left to the individual. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. An individual's freedom/liberty is therefore not compromised at all.

 

[VizierX]

What if the citizens not only opposed the immediate ban on alcohol, but the ban itself?

Go somewhere else. Nobody is forcing the individual to remain.

 

[VizierX]

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.

Its very simple. Go live somewhere else. Society is a lot like a club. If you don't like the rules you are free to find another one.

 

[titus]

If you don't like it, you are free to leave. An individual's freedom/liberty is therefore not compromised at all.

So in any state in which you are allowed to leave there is, by definition, no compromise in freedom or liberty? Is that your assertion?

 

[VizierX]

So in any state in which you are allowed to leave there is, by definition, no compromise in freedom or liberty? Is that your assertion?

Pretty much. The opposite is slavery and tyranny.

 

[Hugo]

Its debatable whether that " one man, one vote, once" is really true but you are always left with a choice to leave if you don't like it. The decision to be part of an Islamic state (or any community) is always left to the individual. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. An individual's freedom/liberty is therefore not compromised at all.

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.

 

[Froggy]

Its very simple. Go live somewhere else. Society is a lot like a club. If you don't like the rules you are free to find another one.

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

 

[VizierX]

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.

I don't believe that's true. The World is a very big place. And if one wants to protest one would be better served moving to a country that allows protests, no? Nobody is forcing these individual to remain. They are free to leave and find another society more to their liking, anytime. That's called freedom.

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.

Why would I want to become a citizen of Saudi Arabia? Its run by a totally corrupt regime propped up by the US. And if Europeans one day decide to opt for Sharia then it will happen. And there are different interpretations of Sharia. There is a lot of diversity within Islamic thought. Stop listening to trolls like Anjem Choudhary.

 

[VizierX]

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

Because maybe according to the Legal Constitutions of their respective countries that may indeed be the case.

 

[Froggy]

Because maybe according to the Legal Constitutions of their respective countries that may indeed be the case.

Constitutions can be changed and there are many instances where the constitution is not violated and the Muslims still complain.

 

[titus]

Pretty much. The opposite is slavery and tyranny.

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.

 

[Hugo]

Yes you do.. and scholars are formally educated in jurisprudence..

Please answer the questions I posed so we can maintain a clear discussion

of which you extricate yourself when need be and add passages when need be to affirm that you are praying to the same god shbeal.. not only are you confused about what your beliefs should be and completely irresolute leaving us to wonder which parts you deem applicable and which should be thrown out, but you make a rather large leap to question injunctions of which you are completely under-educated.. (which is becoming so status quo for you) I wonder when you might start to feel embarrassed with your ridiculous school boy attempts at intelligent conversation...

I think I explained how such verses are interpreted, must be interpreted, if you don't like the answer that is fine but it is time you understood that your constant barrage of insults only serves to show you have no arguments.

The love of God is implanted in the hearts of true Muslims and your petty attempts at equating liquor with freedom amongst other things will not begin to scratch the surface of that actually means!

It is better if you don't confuse my posts with what others say else we get in a muddle. Can you define a true Muslim and are you one of those with the 'love of God implanted' because your posts and incessant, unremitting contumely and vilification sadly bring dishonour on God and the name of Islam.

 

[جوري]

Please answer the questions I posed so we can maintain a clear discussion

Just because you don't like the answer given doesn't mean that I more than adequately answered your question!

I think I explained how such verses are interpreted, must be interpreted, if you don't like the answer that is fine but it is time you understood that your constant barrage of insults only serves to show you have no arguments.

I don't understand, are you trying to tickle me? you like putting a spin to verses that are clear as day excerpted without any addendum to the punishment of apostates as per your books.. yet by the same token unable to accept scholarly exegesis by Muslims of their own book. You call that a barrage of insults, and I merely holding up the mirror for you so you can why you come across as an unlearned hypocrite!

It is better if you don't confuse my posts with what others say else we get in a muddle. Can you define a true Muslim and are you one of those with the 'love of God implanted' because your posts and incessant, unremitting contumely and vilification sadly bring dishonour on God and the name of Islam.

A Muslim is one who is able to keep basic commandments.. being a Muslim is the lowest level of piety one can attain..

there is Islam/Iman/Ikhlas/Ihsan.. I don't expect that you should be interested in any of those definitions, I have learned quite clearly what it is you are interested in.. and I don't believe I am dishonoring God by exposing you as a Tartuffe!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

What makes you think that? I'm not a naturalist. My Worldview ontologically allows for moral realism.

Because I stated that the claim morality being objective is incoherent and your response was (if I remember correctly) something along the lines of "Exactly!"

So I take it that you yourself did not believe also that morality as objective.

What?

I don't know how much simpler I can put this. Earlier on in our little debate you said: "If you break the the rules of your community knowing full well the consequences, then you are fully responsible for the punishment."

Do you believe that if someone understands the rammifications of their actions against the state, that it is their fault and are deserving of it?

For example, the White Rose movement knew precisely what they were getting into it and yet began their campaign anyway - do you think that they deserved any punishments that they had coming to them?

From my Religious perspective or your amoral atheistic perspective?

From your perspective. I am asking you. I'll speak for my own perspective, and it is neither 'atheistic' or 'amoral' when it comes to morality.

It depends upon your moral presuppositions. As a Religious person I can argue that such actions may be objectively wrong. You can't.

You're right (although you yourself also cannot argue that such actions are objectively wrong).

But I can claim they are wrong - and ultimately, that is all that is required to be moral. The foundation of my own understanding of morality is that people's own personal liberty is the only real thing that matters and the only actual thing that morality ought to cater itself towards. The only 'evidence' I need for this is that we all desire to be free. We all desire to live our own lives as we choose free from unwanted intervention or control. Given that we are a social species - things that best assist this are things such as ideals that further and benefit humans co-existing in a group. We should only consider what ought in the context of how it effects others personal freedom.

This has a lot to do with ensuring that our own personal self-interest is met, and indeed might be what morality is based on but I have no problem with this.

I'm referring to Natural Atheism which is the norm. Naturalism ontologically precludes moral realism.

Again, you cannot pretend to understand how people think based on a lack of belief.

Agree with you on your first statement. Very much disagree with you on the second.

You're free to disagree. I expected you would disagree on the second.

The 'God-morality' system is nothing more than an elaborate might equals right system. It is, and can be an enabler to atrocity because it distorts what morality should be about.

I disagree. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to be a member of a community you're going to have to agree to abide by its rules i.e. the "rent". If you don't like the terms of the contract, you are free to leave. This is basic social contract theory.

What part of born into it did you not read?

As I said, if you're born into an Islamic state then you have no say over what you can do and should you desire to apostate you would be forced to leave, possibly secretly and without declaring your position in order to avoid rammifications.

This is not complaining about paying for lunch, this is about complaining about being force-fed.

Well, I believe in God's Law.

So how is that objective? A group of evangelical zealots from the Bible Belt could secede from the United States and decree it 'God's Law'. The rest of us would just look at them funny.

How would you determine it to someone else that does not share your metaphysical viewpoints that indeed, your state is founded on 'God's Law'?

 

[Skavau]

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.

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

Whether such changes are phased in or not is a matter that is decided in the interests of keeping the peace. The main point I think being uttered here (from my observations) is that in a state where Sharia Law is imposed, in its entirety - there can be no changes to its foundation. It is an authoritarian regime that claims direction from a higher power. Only matters where there is no direct ruling, or no direct answer to social situations can there be change (as you appear to talk about) in the parameters.

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.

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

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. 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.

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?