Islam and Liberty?

[جوري]

Uhr, no.

I was stating that many self-professed liberal & democratic states do things that are in contradiction to both liberalism and democracy.

When it occurs on daily basis one can safely conclude that, that is what 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are all about.. the approval of the majority to behave like uncivilized assholes!

I agree with you to an extent. What I was getting at in general though is that Muslims often ruthlessly disconnect themselves with every Muslim-majority state on the planet due to the fact that some things they do are not wholly consistent with Sharia Law and then decree that due to this no-one can criticise a Muslim run nation.

We should indeed disconnect ourselves from those who don't represent Islam, those who do are usually labeled as 'fanatic' 'terrorists' 'extremists' 'wahhabis' 'islamists' and from where I am standing 'liberal democracy' doesn't like them very much or any attempt made on their part to reunite or establish the Muslim world under one banner.. so they torture them and take them away from their kids and give them phony trials imprison them for life, or target them for uttering words that are incongruous with the western understanding of the term 'liberal democracy' it is a funny thing actually!

I think that is an absurd demand. From a skeptical perspective, Islam has to be as Muslims do. I think it is fair to insist that Muslims do somewhat represent Islam.

see above!

Huh?

I asked you do you think people should not comment on anything if they have not lived under it, or experienced it?

Indeed you shouldn't.. or at least do it in circles of like minds.. no one here owes you any explanation!

Yes they do. The modern day atheist now can arguably be described as liberal, democratic and secular. Not communistic.

And what makes you oh so much better than a commie?

If you want to believe I am some closet Stalinist, by all means. But I am not.

It wouldn't make a difference and that is the bottom line of what I'd written..

Right so you don't trust anything I say. Ever.

I didn't think I was under any obligation to.. thanks for stating the obvious!

May I ask you what you think the purposes of 'democracy' and 'liberalism' are?

What we have seen thus far more akin to totalitarianism than anything!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

When it occurs on daily basis one can safely conclude that, that is what 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are all about.. the approval of the majority to behave like uncivilized assholes!

So by this logic, we'll just conclude that the actions of the Saudi Arabian Monarchs reflect Sharia Law because, well, they claim that they propose Sharia Law.

We should indeed disconnect ourselves from those who don't represent Islam, those who do are usually labeled as 'fanatic' 'terrorists' 'extremists' 'wahhabis' 'islamists' and from where I am standing 'liberal democracy' doesn't like them very much or any attempt made on their part to reunite or establish the Muslim world under one banner.. so they torture them and take them away from their kids and give them phony trials imprison them for life, or target them for uttering words that are incongruous with the western understanding of the term 'liberal democracy' it is a funny thing actually!

You'll have to give some examples here.

And by the way, you can disconnect yourself with who you like - just do not deem it unreasonable that people might connect the actions of a muslim-majority state that claims to rule by divine ordinance with Islam.

Indeed you shouldn't.. or at least do it in circles of like minds.. no one here owes you any explanation!

I am not insisting on an explanation. I decided to comment in this thread.

And what makes you oh so much better than a commie?

I don't understand the question. I wasn't saying I was. Just stating that I am not a communist, nor have any leanings towards it.

What we have seen thus far more akin to totalitarianism than anything!

Could you elaborate how that is the case? Liberalism by definition cannot be totalitarian.

 

[جوري]

So by this logic, we'll just conclude that the actions of the Saudi Arabian Monarchs reflect Sharia Law because, well, they claim that they propose Sharia Law.

I don't think you are capable of using logic if that is what you have concluded from the previous!

You'll have to give some examples here.

Browse this forum you can't miss it..

And by the way, you can disconnect yourself with who you like - just do not deem it unreasonable that people might connect the actions of a muslim-majority state that claims to rule by divine ordinance with Islam.

The Muslims majority are unhappy about the ruling few.. those who stage a coup aren't met with success unfortunately.. and there is a vested interest in keeping them in places like gitmo.

I am not insisting on an explanation. I decided to comment in this thread.

You decided to comment on my comments and these are the responses I have!

I don't understand the question. I wasn't saying I was. Just stating that I am not a communist, nor have any leanings towards it.

There is no question.. it is an observation, whether you subscribe to communism or liberalism it doesn't make much of a difference.

Could you elaborate how that is the case? Liberalism by definition cannot be totalitarian.

We have already stated that definitions and real life application are two separate issues about a few posts ago, I don't like going in loops!

all the best

 

[MSalman]

same topics discussed many times before and like in the past this is nothing but beating around the bush with nothing gained at the end. Instead of arguing back and forth, let's start from the basics: the kuffaar in this thread define liberty and freedom for me? and who decides this definition and why one should adhere to this definition and its implication?

So by this logic, we'll just conclude that the actions of the Saudi Arabian Monarchs reflect Sharia Law because, well, they claim that they propose Sharia Law.

with this absurd point, you are the last person to talk about logic or any common sense. By using this logic, we can say that the actions of certain western countries, which is occupying lands and killing millions of innocent person, represents democracy and liberty. We can also say that the criminal actions of certain atheists, liberalists, humanists represents liberty. Do you agree with this? If you say no then on what basis you are willing to make an absurd conclusion for one side but you simple gain some wisdom when it is returned back at you?

 

[Hugo]

same topics discussed many times before and like in the past this is nothing but beating around the bush with nothing gained at the end. Instead of arguing back and forth, let's start from the basics: the kuffaar in this thread define liberty and freedom for me? and who decides this definition and why one should adhere to this definition and its implication?

If YOU take the trouble to read the post I began the thread with definitions. IF you think they are inadequate or wrong then say so and explain what you might men by freedom and liberty - perhaps its you that is 'beating round the bush'?

with this absurd point, you are the last person to talk about logic or any common sense. By using this logic, we can say that the actions of certain western countries, which is occupying lands and killing millions of innocent person, represents democracy and liberty. We can also say that the criminal actions of certain atheists, liberalists, humanists represents liberty. Do you agree with this? If you say no then on what basis you are willing to make an absurd conclusion for one side but you simple gain some wisdom when it is returned back at you?

Can you be precise here, which Western country is killing 'millions' consider say Iraq or Afganistan and ask who is bombing who in the streets and shopping places and Mosques? You are free to point the finger at say Americas but are you free enough to see and say how iniquitous it is for one Muslim group to target another?

One consequence of liberty is to own up to your own failing as a society - don't you agree?

 

[Skavau]

with this absurd point, you are the last person to talk about logic or any common sense. By using this logic, we can say that the actions of certain western countries, which is occupying lands and killing millions of innocent person, represents democracy and liberty. We can also say that the criminal actions of certain atheists, liberalists, humanists represents liberty. Do you agree with this? If you say no then on what basis you are willing to make an absurd conclusion for one side but you simple gain some wisdom when it is returned back at you?

If you had bothered to read the context of that, you'd know I was commenting on what Skye had said concerning the western world. I was responding to this statement specifically:

When it occurs on daily basis one can safely conclude that, that is what 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are all about.. the approval of the majority to behave like uncivilized assholes!

 

[MSalman]

If YOU take the trouble to read the post I began the thread with definitions. IF you think they are inadequate or wrong then say so and explain what you might men by freedom and liberty - perhaps its you that is 'beating round the bush'?

let's not display our reading comprehension problems. I already know what you have said in the first post and I did spend sometime to read it. I already know what you believe in because I have discussed with you similar topics many times before. Yet, you have failed to answer my main question which is: "Why one should adhere to your definition and its implication? On what basis you say that your definition is correct/more accurate or this is the solution to make better place for humanity". Mind you, before you attack me with a straw man as you usually do, I am not saying that your position is wrong or right. I am simply asking you why you think that your position is correct. Is there some sort of standard criteria to which we all agree upon and say "this is fine but that is not fine"? If it is not, then at the end of the day it is simply your understanding and perception and by no means it becomes a fact/reality. Just because you define liberty a certain way doesn't mean that we are certain that this is how the liberty should be. Or the the society should be bounded by this kind of liberty. What you are saying and bringing up is purely subjective in nature.

I hope you get my drift!

Can you be precise here, which Western country is killing 'millions' consider say Iraq or Afganistan and ask who is bombing who in the streets and shopping places and Mosques? You are free to point the finger at say Americas but are you free enough to see and say how iniquitous it is for one Muslim group to target another?

this is pretty nonsensical of you to bring such a irrelevant point to discussion. People are well aware of which countries took part in invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and how they created a big mess there. Were there any suicide bombing and chaos before your democratic/liberal countries invaded these countries? Why do your people keep supporting this mess and not letting people to settle down? But that is beside the point to divert attention from key point. The point is that can certain actions of individuals be used as evidence to show his actions are the teachings of his ideology? Just to make myself clear, for example, can one say that Christianity condones rape or teaches it because some Christan was a rapist? In my 4 years of many discussion with many different kuffaar, you and skavu are the only two people who made this absurd claim.

@skavu

I may have taken your point out of context; however, you were trying to make a similar claim in one of your earliest posts in this thread. I haven't read every single post, maybe you rectified it or maybe I misunderstood you. So if I have misunderstood you then I apologize for that.

 

[Hugo]

Yet, you have failed to answer my main question which is: "Why one should adhere to your definition and its implication? On what basis you say that your definition is correct/more accurate or this is the solution to make better place for humanity".

I offered the definitions as a way of starting the thread. However, it does seem that freedom is something everyone wants and typically that means freedom of conscience, freedom to say what you believe, freedom to disagree, freedom to take up a religion or leave it, freedom to choose what to believe, freedom to speak openly or offer legitimate criticism of any one including any prophets, freedom to change a government, etc. I cannot see thee would make the world a worse place? If you don't want them fine but don't deny them them to others.

Mind you, before you attack me with a straw man as you usually do, I am not saying that your position is wrong or right. I am simply asking you why you think that your position is correct. Is there some sort of standard criteria to which we all agree upon and say "this is fine but that is not fine"?

Where exactly is the strawman, all I have done is state some possible definitions? My standards are as stated above and central as criteria as the freedoms to think as I wish and freedom of conscience. Why would anyone not agree to what I have said?

I

f it is not, then at the end of the day it is simply your understanding and perception and by no means it becomes a fact/reality. Just because you define liberty a certain way doesn't mean that we are certain that this is how the liberty should be. Or the the society should be bounded by this kind of liberty. What you are saying and bringing up is purely subjective in nature.

This is liberty, you can ignore what I say and I can ignore you. You might say that only in Islam is liberty but I profoundly disagree and we don't have to hate or kill each because of it do we? It cannot be more than subjective as far as I can see.

But that is beside the point to divert attention from key point. The point is that can certain actions of individuals be used as evidence to show his actions are the teachings of his ideology? Just to make myself clear, for example, can one say that Christianity condones rape or teaches it because some Christan was a rapist? In my 4 years of many discussion with many different kuffaar, you and skavu are the only two people who made this absurd claim.

One cannot use single examples to judge a whole society but it also must be true that Muslim by their actions define Islam. Christians say 'by their deeds shall you know them' and by implication we are Gods witnesses and how we react reflects in some way on Him. This is the only claim I have made

 

[VizierX]

@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.

Yep, its called the social contract.

 

[Hugo]

Yep, its called the social contract.

The Social contract idea was introduced about 400 years ago and notably by Rousseau and it tries to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion is essentially democratic and implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. Social contract theory is an historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. So an individual's rational self-interest may be voluntarily given up in its state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

NONE of this is true for Saudi Arabia (see the connected posts), there is no social contract. Indeed if you listen to some Islamic commentators such liberty to consent is unislamic since it is God's law, ipso facto there is no liberty of consent in Islam.

 

[VizierX]

The Social contract idea was introduced about 400 years ago and notably by Rousseau and it tries to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion is essentially democratic and implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. Social contract theory is an historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. So an individual's rational self-interest may be voluntarily given up in its state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

NONE of this is true for Saudi Arabia (see the connected posts), there is no social contract. Indeed if you listen to some Islamic commentators such liberty to consent is unislamic since it is God's law, ipso facto there is no liberty of consent in Islam.

The point is if you want to be a community you're going to have to abide by its rules. If you don't like it you should leave. This is simply common sense.

 

[Hugo]

The point is if you want to be a community you're going to have to abide by its rules. If you don't like it you should leave. This is simply common sense.

But suppose you have nowhere to go, the land where you live IS your home and in any case why should we not be able to protest and change society? In the West Muslims can do that but it seems as soon as they gain power they will deny that right to others - sounds dishonest to me.

But you are I think avoiding the question that in Saudi there is no social contract and that is what Islam amounts to, people have no say, cannot criticise the law and must take it or leave it - no freedom of thought or conscience - you may be happy with that world but I would not be and it is in no sense free.

 

[VizierX]

But suppose you have nowhere to go, the land where you live IS your home and in any case why should we not be able to protest and change society?

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.

In the West Muslims can do that but it seems as soon as they gain power they will deny that right to others - sounds dishonest to me.

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.

 

[Skavau]

The point is if you want to be a community you're going to have to abide by its rules. If you don't like it you should leave. This is simply common sense.

A cheap point.

I have seen this argued concerning Islamic states. The old, tired and overused cultural relativist argument of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans'. That they have the 'right' to intrude on personal liberty. That you have no 'right' to complain about it.

The first problem with it, is that it is usually proposed dishonestly. Muslims do not accept cultural relativism (their argument for Islamic states here) and many would very much like it if the entire world was under the rule of the Caliphate. Others, if not proposing this - simply wait patiently and happily for the end of their life and/or world when they believe that Allah will begin assuming direct control.

I would like to think that when people say that they stand universally against justice that it means something. This argument renders that ideal an impossibility. If you are to propose that every sovereign state has complete right to its own affairs, then you grant all manners of petty dictators the right to run their country and its population into the ground through the abuse and control of others. You would necessarily contend that all concerns over human rights and personal freedom as conducted by all aid organisations, charitable groups and political groups as meaningless and, ironically intrusive. I should like to think that it a Fourth Reich resurfaced we would have enough understanding of the suffering of others to voice our contempt and show our desire to have it removed.

The rights of the individual must always take precedent over the right of the dear leader to control him or her. Whoever stated that the 'rights' of a nation over its populace (I don't believe any nation ought to be entitled to treat its citizens how it pleases) had no understanding of how concepts such as human rights mean everything. For without it, you may as well not exist.

The final problem by the way is that your statement by the way that people should leave if they dispute the dear leader is flawed. Some fascist states make it impossible for you to leave if you disapprove of their methods. They do not allow it. All information I have over North Korea is that any form of political dissentation means life in prison, torture or possible death. North Korea even try that on with non-citizens who cross their border. Do you suppose that's okay? Do you suppose that North Korea can do what it likes? That it is not acceptable for us to intervene?

Perhaps an example closer to home, is an apostate of Islam under Sharia Law. Do they get an option to leave the state or must they face execution/imprisonment for their 'crimes'?

 

[VizierX]

A cheap point.

Faux.

I have seen this argued concerning Islamic states. The old, tired and overused cultural relativist argument of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans'. That they have the 'right' to intrude on personal liberty. That you have no 'right' to complain about it.

If you are a natural atheist, then you can't logically be anything but a cultural relativist. All talk of rights also descends into fantasy since there cannot be any such things as objective rights in a naturalistic universe.

The first problem with it, is that it is usually proposed dishonestly. Muslims do not accept cultural relativism (their argument for Islamic states here) and many would very much like it if the entire world was under the rule of the Caliphate.

Unless you're a cultural/moral realist, which is logically indefensible for a naturalist, you're being equally dishonest.

The rights of the individual must always take precedent over the right of the dear leader to control him or her. Whoever stated that the 'rights' of a nation over its populace (I don't believe any nation ought to be entitled to treat its citizens how it pleases) had no understanding of how concepts such as human rights mean everything. For without it, you may as well not exist.

This is all your subjective opinion and has no basis in objective reality.

Perhaps an example closer to home, is an apostate of Islam under Sharia Law. Do they get an option to leave the state or must they face execution/imprisonment for their 'crimes'?

I don't believe that apostasy is a crime punishable by death. But if that is the law of the land you should leave prior to committing apostasy. Its very simple.

 

[Skavau]

If you are a natural atheist, then you can't logically be anything but a cultural relativist. All talk of rights also descends into fantasy since there cannot be any such things as objective rights in a naturalistic universe.

Understanding that morality is or could be subjective has nothing to do with cultural relativism.

This is all your subjective opinion and has no basis in objective reality.

If it is my 'subjective opinion' (of course it is, look who is saying it) - then on what grounds ought I accept the claim that a nationstate can run itself how it likes?

I don't believe that apostasy is a crime punishable by death. But if that is the law of the land you should leave prior to committing apostasy. Its very simple.

Well I'm glad to hear that you don't really care about people's suffering. That all it takes is a state to exist for you to shrug your shoulders and mutter that people should just deal with it.

Or do you not think that?

 

[VizierX]

Understanding that morality is or could be subjective has nothing to do with cultural relativism.

Ok. So what?

If it is my 'subjective opinion' (of course it is, by definition) - then on what grounds ought I accept the claim that a nationstate can run itself how it likes?

It doesn't matter what you think. Nation states will run themselves how they like. The world doesn't operate according to your personal ideas of what it ought to be like.

Well I'm glad to hear that you don't really care about people's suffering. That all it takes is a state to exist for you to shrug your shoulders and mutter that people should just deal with it.

I'm saying if you don't like the laws and rules of a particular community and you aren't in a position to change them, you should leave. I don't see how a person could have interpreted it in the fashion that you have.

 

[Skavau]

Ok. So what?

So your claim that I have to by consequence of my positions be a relativist is wrong.

It doesn't matter what you think. Nation states will run themselves how they like. The world doesn't operate according to your personal ideas of what it ought to be like.

I know this. Your point? This is not a moral justification, merely an assertion that people with power are capable of maintaining that power without much or any intervention.

I was merely responding to what I see as an overused cheap point of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" to justify atrocities.

I'm saying if you don't like the laws and rules of a particular community and you aren't in a position to change them, you should leave. I don't see how a person could have interpreted it in the fashion that you have.

That goes without saying.

It doesn't make that community right though. Which was my point. I interpreted in the way you typed it to make a moral point - that everyone's suffering, ill-treatment and lack of freedom ought to be a concern to us all nevermind where they live or what dear leader they are compelled to waive personal sovereignty to.

I suspect you would rightly complain if suddenly the nation you are in decided that your personal liberty was no concern of theirs and detained you indefinitely on false allegations. Why can this be handwaved away if it happens in a little African microstate run to the ground by fascist thugs?

 

[VizierX]

So your claim that I have to by consequence of my positions be a relativist is wrong.

Relativist in terms of what?

I know this. Your point? This is not a moral justification, merely an assertion that people with power are capable of maintaining that power without much or any intervention.

Without an objective moral standard to appeal to any talk of morality is pretty much subjective gibberish.

I was merely responding to what I see as an overused cheap point of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" to justify atrocities.

If you break the the rules of your community knowing full well the consequences, then you are fully responsible for the punishment.

It doesn't make that community right though....

What makes something right? What makes something wrong? How would you answer this without getting into an infinite regress or circularity?

I suspect you would rightly complain if suddenly the nation you are in decided that your personal liberty was no concern of theirs and detained you indefinitely on false allegations.

Of course I would. But that is fundamentally different to what happens in a society like Saudi Arabia. There is an explicit rule of law there. If you abide by its laws you'll be fine, if you don't you'll get punished. If you don't like the laws you are also quite free to leave. In effect your freedom and liberty are not compromised *at all*.

 

[Skavau]

Relativist in terms of what?

You stated that I had to by necessity be a moral relativist. I do not.

Without an objective moral standard to appeal to any talk of morality is pretty much subjective gibberish.

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.

And what do you mean by 'subjective gibberish'?

If you break the the rules of your community knowing full well the consequences, then you are fully responsible for the punishment.

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?

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?

What makes something right? What makes something wrong? How would you answer this without getting into an infinite regress or circularity?

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.

Of course I would. But that is fundamentally different to what happens in a society like Saudi Arabia. There is an explicit rule of law there. If you abide by its laws you'll be fine, if you don't you'll get punished. If you don't like the laws you are also quite free to leave. In effect your freedom and liberty are not compromised *at all*.

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?

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.