Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[9thdoctor]

That is a typical evasive answer. The fact is that you are justifying the stoning of adulterers with all that prattle about divorcing. Even if nobody else on this forum speaks up against such despicable ideas I'll do it.

Let’s give him a chance to reconcile his religion with his politics. I’m confident that he’s not seeking to have stoning implemented into the New Zealand legal system. There’s plenty of stoning in the Old Testament, but you wouldn’t jump on a libertarian Jew if he tried to explain it away as a historical artefact.

when someone with really evil ideas appears, it's all sweet peace and love. I'm disgusted.

The thread is still young. Mwua-ha-ha!

BTW, wasn’t the four witnesses part added when one of Muhammad’s family members was more or less caught in the act? Joseph Smith was known for being equally glib, having convenient revelations.

[Brant Gaede]

It's simple dragonfly. If you aren't happy in your marriage. Get divorced. It isn't difficult to get divorced in Islam at all. Why stay in a relationship where you're not happy? What's worse is, why on earth would you humiliate your partner who may very well love you with all of their heart by engaging in acts of sex in the full view of the public? Do it in private and save your partner the humiliation of your public betrayal.

That is a typical evasive answer. The fact is that you are justifying the stoning of adulterers with all that prattle about divorcing. Even if nobody else on this forum speaks up against such despicable ideas I'll do it. The wolfpack here is always busy bashing Xray because she has some critical remarks, but when someone with really evil ideas appears, it's all sweet peace and love. I'm disgusted.

I'd be interested in Xray's response to these "evil ideas." I think they are too.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Yoo Hoo, Mr, Viahos.

It is virtually impossible for a woman to obtain a divorce under Islam. This is purely at the discretion of her husband. A man can divorce a woman at well, but a woman cannot divorce a man at will. She cannot even refuse to have sexual relations with him, without entailing punishment.

Under Islam, women have a shitty deal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

Yoo Hoo, Mr, Viahos.

It is virtually impossible for a woman to obtain a divorce under Islam. This is purely at the discretion of her husband. A man can divorce a woman at well, but a woman cannot divorce a man at will. She cannot even refuse to have sexual relations with him, without entailing punishment.

Under Islam, women have a shitty deal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Which makes Islam, by its nature, an anti-human shitty deal...

[Dragonfly]

Let’s give him a chance to reconcile his religion with his politics. I’m confident that he’s not seeking to have stoning implemented into the New Zealand legal system. There’s plenty of stoning in the Old Testament, but you wouldn’t jump on a libertarian Jew if he tried to explain it away as a historical artefact.

He's not explaining away it as a "historical artefact", he's unashamedly justifying it. If a Jew would do the same I certainly would jump on him if he started to defend such views here.

[9thdoctor]

he's unashamedly justifying it.

That’s not how I read his answer, but it’s not clear so now it’s his turn to clarify. Adonis, would capital punishment, and specifically stoning, for adultery (or for anything in the case of stoning) be part of your ideal legal/cultural framework?

If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.

Deuteronomy 22.22

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Welcome to OL!

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Folks:

There are too many "hearsay" type statements being made about a toxic topic.

My sentiments toward Islam are in the seriously undecided category.

We have approximately allegedly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. There are apparently three (3) main branches - Sunni, Shia, Ibadi. Then we hear about Sufi, Arab, Indonesian, Wahhabi and Al-Qaeda just for starters off the top of my head.

We have a Muslim history with Mahdi's coming out of the desert. The Twelvers who are waiting for some dude on a white horse to emerge from this well and liquefy the world. It is like reading Dune with Paul Atreides, going native like Lawrence of Arabia.

Then we have Muslims use varying forms of Islamic law, called shariah in Arabic. The Islamic law exists in many variations, but the main forms are the five (four Sunni and one Shia) schools of jurisprudence (fiqh):

• Hanafi school in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Spain, Morocco, Canada, Maldives, Iraq and West Africa
• Maliki in North Africa and West Africa
• Shafi'i in Malaysia, Qatar, Indonesia, Egypt, Eritrea, Somalia and Yemen
• Hanbali in Arabia, Qatar
• Jaferi in Iran Iraq, Bahrain and AzerbaijanThese four are the only "Muslim States" where the majority is Shia and in Yemen, India, Pakistan and Lebanon where the Shia are numerically significant.

A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population October 2009

Map: World Distribution of Muslim Population

This "weighted" map of the world shows each country’s relative size based on its Muslim population. Figures are rounded to the nearest million. Click to enlarge.

So before we start the global philosophical argument between Islam and objectivism with all its problems, let's see if we can even define what the hell a Muslim is.

Adam

[syrakusos]

In the topic on Capitalism ?=? Objectivism, I made this point in reply to anonrobert, asking whether Objectivists are guardians at war or traders in exchange:

(And I see that Selene bumped in ahead of my post here. I won't change what I said, but I stand corrected.)

So far, no one has asked the Muslim businessman to explain commerce under shariah law. They do not want to trade. They want to beat the ideological stuffing out of this intruder into their territory.

Following Aristotle and others who pointed out that as money is not alive, it is unnatural that it should increase by multiplication, modern bankers in Muslim countries do not charge compound interest, but, instead take an ownership stake, which, of course, pays profits, but also brings the banker in as an interested partner, a valuable asset. In fact, this is also how the highest levels of capitalism operate. The lenders get seats on the board. But, I do not want to distract you from your cudgeling. Carry on.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[BaalChatzaf]

He's not explaining away it as a "historical artefact", he's unashamedly justifying it. If a Jew would do the same I certainly would jump on him if he started to defend such views here.

An Orthodox Jew would not do such a thing. About 1200 years ago the Rabbis being realists realize that Jews had no land they could call their own. What to do? The general decision was : dinat malachutah, din. The law of the domain is the Law. That is Orthodox Jews were bound to be law abiding in whatever land they found themselves. Partly, it was assumed that if a Jew found himself in something other than the Holy Land it was G-D's will that it should be so, and partly because it was the only way for Jews to be left at peace in their home away from home. The only exceptions for this would be if the laws of the domain demanded idol worship, sexual immorality or wrongful shedding of blood. Then a Jew would be obliged to disobey such unrighteous laws.

Which is why you do not find Jews of any stripe pushing for imposition of Halachah (Jewish law) on the general public and why Jews are generally law-abiding in whatever land they live in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

In the topic on Capitalism ?=? Objectivism, I made this point in reply to anonrobert, asking whether Objectivists are guardians at war or traders in exchange:

(And I see that Selene bumped in ahead of my post here. I won't change what I said, but I stand corrected.)

So far, no one has asked the Muslim businessman to explain commerce under shariah law. They do not want to trade. They want to beat the ideological stuffing out of this intruder into their territory.

Following Aristotle and others who pointed out that as money is not alive, it is unnatural that it should increase by multiplication, modern bankers in Muslim countries do not charge compound interest, but, instead take an ownership stake, which, of course, pays profits, but also brings the banker in as an interested partner, a valuable asset. In fact, this is also how the highest levels of capitalism operate. The lenders get seats on the board. But, I do not want to distract you from your cudgeling. Carry on.

Lol.

I was just going to get to the economic question. There is a bank in Pennsylvania, I believe, possibly Ohio that I had written about in another thread. It catered to a predominantly Muslim population. I believe that the branch manager became extremely "creative" and made his branch explode with happy Muslim clients. I believed he solved the issue you just raised, but for the life of me, I can't remember how he did it. If I run across the story, I will post it.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

As you can see, others do not think as I do.

I imagine if I went on a Muslim forum and tried to present a case for bridge-building, but from a position of atheism and selfishness, there would be similar reactions.

At any rate, the focus of many is trying to get you to defend their view of Islam, not the Islam I have seen practiced by the vast majority in today's world (and which I believe you practice).

My focus is on trying to find where freedom ideas can fit with the Muslim worldview of that vast majority, and where "freedom of religion" (especially when disagreements abound) is more than just a cool-sounding phrase to the majority of Westerners. That, to me, is the first step and somebody has to take it. As I see it, you, I and others springing up around the world are doing just that.

btw - I agree that taking a loving partner's feelings into account by not humiliating such person with public adultery is a good thing. I don't agree with stoning those who commit public adultery, though. Nor am I in favor of mutilations. On the Western end, I am against capital punishment.

This is not because I side with the guilty, but because human beings are prone to error. A social structure making undoable acts on an innocent human being, then getting off with some form of saying "Oops," while the power structure is perpetuated, is a horror I believe should not be granted to any state or religion. Confinement, fines, etc., are plenty enough for punishment. Those, at least, can be compensated and remedied if errors occur.

I, personally, won't ask you to defend those undoable punishment things in Islam, but I do want to register that I hold them to be wrong. I don't ever expect to change that view, either. So our dialogue will have to have the leeway for this kind of permanent disagreement.

To be clear, though, my disagreement is not so much with Islam, but with anybody or any organization that does these things. That, obviously, includes the social structures on my end.

You mentioned on Solo Passion that Islam was essentially libertarian and presented a very interesting take on it. I don't see that argument convincing Western libertarians and Objectivists, but I do see it getting the job done with Muslims. I am interested in exploring the reasoning behind it. I think you might be on to something...

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

Mr Hougen, would you care to tell me where I was being dishonest?

Hi Adonis,

Welcome to OL.

It has been ten years since I have studied Islam in any depth, so it may take me some time to research things, but let's start by listing the claims you made. In your post on Solo Passion, you stated:

[Muhammad pbuh] changed that, in his life he:

- Set a process to prevent wars without reason and to try and resolve conflict quickly through negotiation with justice being paramount.

- He recognized and stood up for the rights that women deserved, that is the rights to be considered equal to men, they were given their rights to vote, speak out against things they didn't like and have their voices heard, choose their husbands, divorce, inherit, to engage in commerce and own their own wealth with their family or husbands having no right to it. They had the right to be provided for, whether that is by her family or if married by her husband and the disgusting practice of burying baby girls was outlawed with heavy punishments on those who were guilty of it.

- Slavery in the fashion practiced by the US and the British was forbidden and the Prophet himself and his wonderful wife Khadijah may God bless them both spent out of their own pockets as merchants to free as many slaves as they could, all people were recognized as being equal regardless or race, colour or financial status.

- Orphans were given a special protection status and regulations were put in place to ensure that not only were they looked after properly, but that any inheritance that they may have had was not misappropriated or squandered by their guardians.

- The tribalism and culturalism where disgusting practices were happening were discouraged and those which harmed other people were outlawed. Any person could take even the Prophet Muhammad himself before the courts and level accusations against him without fear of persecution.

- Religious minorities had rights and were guaranteed protection by the Muslims, even to the extent where the Muslims were obligated to fight to the death to protect them.

1. Muhammad and his followers started wars to enlarge their empire and Muhammad himself engaged in battle and killed people.
   
2. Women currently are not allowed to open bank accounts if they are not accompanied by men. In Saudi Arabia, they can't drive cars. How could they have had the right to vote when men didn't either?
   
3. The slave trade continued for a thousand years after Muhammad. Up to a million Europeans were captured and taken into slavery by Muslim pirates in North Africa and the Middle East. In fact, the fledgling United States sent war ships to the Mediterranean to combat Muslim pirates. Black Africans were also taken into slavery in large numbers and were often treated brutally.
   
4. I don't know anything about the treatment of orphans.
   
5. I agree that the tribalism that existed prior to Islam was often brutal, but unifying the world under a religious dictatorship is not my idea of successfully combating it.
   
6. Religious minorities were treated as dhimmi. They may have had some legal rights and may have been tolerated, but they were treated as inferior to Muslims. Islam has always practiced a form of religious bigotry towards non-Muslims.
   

We had our Enlightenment long ago which no doubt influenced some of the thinkers like Locke and Jefferson.

Do you have any evidence that those thinkers were positively influenced (or influenced at all) by Islam?

Having said that, despite these monarchs and caliphs being in power, the Muslim world has indeed achieved much in the ideas of science, medicine, economics and politics, this of course at the same time that Europe was in the dark ages, where science was repressed, slavery allowed and tyranny was rampant. It was Islam's influence on sciences through the Muslim empires in places like Cordoba and Baghdad that helped encourage Europe's Renaissance and ultimately lead to the West's Age of Enlightenment.

I am doubtful of the foregoing claims. As I say, I haven't researched the issue recently, but my understanding is that most of the advances in science made by the Persians and ancient Babylonians occurred before Islam took over. Can you give some specific examples of advancements in the areas of science, medicine, economics and politics that advanced under Islam?

As I was researching this post, I found an interesting article about Islam, war, slavery and Thomas Jefferson. Here are some relevant points.

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.

I think the words of the Abassador are particularly revealing. He quotes the Koran (Quran) as stating that Muslims have the right and duty to make war upon and enslave non-Muslims. I have read similar things in other places. If I get around to it, I might dig it up in my copy of the Koran. At any rate, the edicts of the Koran are far from benign.

Darrell

Edited January 3, 2010 by Darrell Hougen

[Selene]

Folks:

If a person lives a "righteous" life pursuant to a particular religion, obeying the laws of the state they are in is not only proper per their religion, but a down right smart way to stay un-dead.

What is the New Testament admonition, render that which is Caesars to Caesar and that which is God's to God.

It is, as Robert noted above, similar to Judaism.

I do not get that from the "Muslims" in Dearborn who are demanding to implement Sharia law. I am sure that DG would confirm the "Islamic problem" that is festering in Denmark, Holland etc.

In domestic relations law in the US, a Jewish person must get a "get", hence the joking phrase to the Jewish civil divorcee, well you still gotta get a get!

Judaism looks with disfavor upon divorce; however, it is not prohibited and even encouraged in certain cases. The rabbis of the Talmud considered marriage a holy contract, and the dissolution of marriage an unholy act. They quote the prophet Malachi, ". . .the Lord has been witness between you and your wife of your youth against whom you have dealt treachorously, though she is your companion, the wife of your covenant" (2:14). The Talmud add in Sanhedrin (22a), "Even [G-d] shares tears when anyone divorces his wife."In biblical law a husband has the right to divorce his wife, but a wife cannot initiate a divorce. About 1,000 years ago, Rebbeinu Gershom ben Yehuda (965-1028) decreed that a husband could no longer divorce his wife without her consent. This decision was accepted as binding by European Jewry.

It is important to note that a civil divorce is not sufficient to dissolve a Jewish marriage. As far as Jewish law is concerned, a couple remains married until the woman receives the get. This has been a significant problem: many liberal Jews have a religiously valid marriage, yet do not obtain a religiously valid divorce. If the woman remarries after such a procedure, her second marriage is considered an adulterous one, and her children are considered "Mamzerim" (bastards, illegitimate).

Christians seek out annulments from their clerics.

These issues are not simple.

Adam

Edited January 3, 2010 by Selene

[Darrell Hougen]

You mentioned on Solo Passion that Islam was essentially libertarian and presented a very interesting take on it. I don't see that argument convincing Western libertarians and Objectivists, but I do see it getting the job done with Muslims. I am interested in exploring the reasoning behind it. I think you might be on to something...

Michael,

I understand what you're trying to do. It would be great if libertarian impulses could be discovered within Islam. That might help the Islamic world transition to a more freedom oriented posture. But, we should not make light of the non-libertarian impulses within Islam. It must be Islam that changes, not our view of it. We cannot accept or even tolerate practices that limit our freedom or the freedoms of other people. In any compromise between good and evil, ...

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It must be Islam that changes, not our view of it.

Darrell,

I don't care if Islam changes or not. Essentially, I just want to be left alone to pursue my interests in peace. I also want my interactions with Muslims to be peaceful, even when we disagree. If Muslims do that, they can keep Islam any way they wish.

As to libertarian issues, I believe strongly in the powers of persuasion once violence is off the table in communications. If many Islamic countries practice barbaric customs, so do many non-Islamic countries. Including our own government.

It is the barbaric customs that have to change. I refuse to play the game of looking at two barbarians and saying one is the barbarian and the other is not. I prefer to define barbarian and point to barbaric acts and say, "There is my evidence. Let the title of barbarian fit whoever does these things."

As to our view of Islam, if you think "our view" does not have to change, what is your view of it? What are your conceptual referents?

In my understanding of rational epistemology, we must correctly identify something before judging it. If the identification is incorrect, then of course that view has to change. Isn't that obvious? How are we going to judge something with any claim to rationality if we don't even know what it is?

There is only one way to find out if your view is correct. That is to look to your conceptual referents. We get one view of Islam on Objectivist boards (where anti-Islamic blogs, etc. are often quoted) and in the mainstream media. Does that standard satisfy you as conceptual referent enough for correct identification? It does not satisfy me, especially since I have lived among Muslims (in Brazil) for a fairly long period of time. I have a whole other frame of conceptual referents and many of them contradict many of the things I read and view. Also, the Muslim people I encounter here in the USA, and I mean encounter personally, fit my conceptual referents from Brazil much more than they do the image portrayed by the MSM, the anti-Islamic blogosphere, Objectivist discussion boards, etc.

I know the evil people exist. I know the good ones do, too.

Adonis is here providing a set of conceptual referents for those unaccustomed to interacting with a devout Muslim. Why not withhold evaluation and objectively observe what he really is? How he acts? What he says? And that means about everything, not just the hot-points. Blank your previous evaluations out for a while and start from the beginning. They will be there when you return from this mental task.

Besides, I think he's a good dude. He certainly has acted like one so far...

Then I suggest adding that data to your pool of knowledge and processing it. After all that, if you feel the need to condemn, then by all means condemn. At least you will have worked at identifying something correctly first-hand instead of taking someone else's word for it.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Welcome, you’ve got guts, and have earned praise. I’m curious what your reaction to the George Walsh piece is: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=397&h=51

We’re giving you a lot of reading assignments, take your time.

-----------

Adonis, I’m curious if you disagree with the above characterizations. I’m sure my use of “bad” and “worst” isn’t to your taste, but this is an atheist site. Most of us think of religion as after-life insurance, in other words a scam. And there’s material in all the holy books that shocks the conscience of the modern secularist.

Now how you get from Islam to libertarianism philosophically, that I’d like to hear about. From my reading, the historical Caliphates are characterized as dictatorial welfare states, do you reject them as the proper form of government? Do you have a quick formulation? Say, political freedom is required for free will and freedom of conscience, therefore sincere embrace of Islam is only possible under a minimal state? But what about sharia?

PS I don’t think hanging out here is going to make you any friends among New Zealand libertarians, but looks like that bridge is already getting toasty.

Ninth Doctor,

I apologize about cutting your quote down. I read the link that you pasted and have found it to be good in some ways, but lacking in fact in others and will comment more on that later.

In regards to not making any friends with the NZ Libertarianz party by being here, well first of all, I don't care if that's the case. If they were to judge me and not want to deal with me based on the discussion on SOLO or here, they wouldn't really be Libertrians. I doubt they'd do that though.

That is a typical evasive answer. The fact is that you are justifying the stoning of adulterers with all that prattle about divorcing. Even if nobody else on this forum speaks up against such despicable ideas I'll do it. The wolfpack here is always busy bashing Xray because she has some critical remarks, but when someone with really evil ideas appears, it's all sweet peace and love. I'm disgusted.

It's not evasive at all. I don't get how I can be called evasive when I am stating clearly what I believe.

Yes, I am justifying the stoning of adulterers in some circumstances because I believe that public adultery is a crime against your partner and against society. I don't however, believe it's a one size fits all punishment and believe that the way it is practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran and other places is completely incorrect.

Yoo Hoo, Mr, Viahos.

It is virtually impossible for a woman to obtain a divorce under Islam. This is purely at the discretion of her husband. A man can divorce a woman at well, but a woman cannot divorce a man at will. She cannot even refuse to have sexual relations with him, without entailing punishment.

Under Islam, women have a shitty deal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's not true at all. A woman can make it a condition of her marriage that she has the same right as a man to divorce and even if she doesn't, she can have a judge nullify her marriage if she gives back the Mahr or Dowry at any time.

Which makes Islam, by its nature, an anti-human shitty deal...

And yet.. Within the West Islam is one of the fastest growing religions with the majority of those who do convert to it being women.. They must really be a bunch of gluttons for punishment eh?

Oh and also, someone asked if I wanted to implement the stoning punishment here in New Zealand. No, absolutely not. Short of New Zealand converting en masse to Islam and through referendum of at least 90% of the adult population demanding such a change to the laws to include the punishment of such, I absolutely wouldn't want it here. I also am very very doubtful of any current nation's ability to implement any 'hudood' or capital punishments appropriately.

[Dragonfly]

Yes, I am justifying the stoning of adulterers in some circumstances because I believe that public adultery is a crime against your partner and against society. I don't however, believe it's a one size fits all punishment and believe that the way it is practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran and other places is completely incorrect.

Yes, they should of course correctly stone adulterers.

No further comment necessary, I think.

[Xray]

It's simple dragonfly. If you aren't happy in your marriage. Get divorced. It isn't difficult to get divorced in Islam at all. Why stay in a relationship where you're not happy? What's worse is, why on earth would you humiliate your partner who may very well love you with all of their heart by engaging in acts of sex in the full view of the public? Do it in private and save your partner the humiliation of your public betrayal.

That is a typical evasive answer. The fact is that you are justifying the stoning of adulterers with all that prattle about divorcing. Even if nobody else on this forum speaks up against such despicable ideas I'll do it. The wolfpack here is always busy bashing Xray because she has some critical remarks, but when someone with really evil ideas appears, it's all sweet peace and love. I'm disgusted.

I'd be interested in Xray's response to these "evil ideas." I think they are too.

--Brant

In my life, I have been in many discussions with (often fervent) advocates of ideologies, transcendent or not. No matter what the ideology, I have almost always observed a believer attitude not questioning the primary source.

Fervent Kantians quoted Kant with the same uncritical attitude of a Jehova's witness quoting the Bible; Marxists quoted from "The Capital" with the same uncritical attitude as feminists quoted from Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex".

Critical questions were often answered from them merely by quoting their "bibles" again. Classic case of circular reasoning.

It is important not to let oneself be caught up in the maze and get off course, but to insist on the people explaining their premises. My approach is always: go for the premises.

So my first question to this poster would start at the base: "What is the primary source for your belief?" (More later).

Edited January 3, 2010 by Xray

[Libertarian Muslim]

Darn repost!

Edited January 3, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

As you can see, others do not think as I do.

I imagine if I went on a Muslim forum and tried to present a case for bridge-building, but from a position of atheism and selfishness, there would be similar reactions.

At any rate, the focus of many is trying to get you to defend their view of Islam, not the Islam I have seen practiced by the vast majority in today's world (and which I believe you practice).

My focus is on trying to find where freedom ideas can fit with the Muslim worldview of that vast majority, and where "freedom of religion" (especially when disagreements abound) is more than just a cool-sounding phrase to the majority of Westerners. That, to me, is the first step and somebody has to take it. As I see it, you, I and others springing up around the world are doing just that.

Yes, you're right. It can be a little frustrating having to say over and over again that I don't support the practices of those extremist's actions and neither do the majority of Muslims, except ignorant people.

The Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him once warned us to seek knowledge so that we could purify Islam "from the falsification of the extremists, and the assumptions of the liars, and the misinterpretation of the fools.”

btw - I agree that taking a loving partner's feelings into account by not humiliating such person with public adultery is a good thing. I don't agree with stoning those who commit public adultery, though. Nor am I in favor of mutilations. On the Western end, I am against capital punishment.

This is not because I side with the guilty, but because human beings are prone to error. A social structure making undoable acts on an innocent human being, then getting off with some form of saying "Oops," while the power structure is perpetuated, is a horror I believe should not be granted to any state or religion. Confinement, fines, etc., are plenty enough for punishment. Those, at least, can be compensated and remedied if errors occur.

I, personally, won't ask you to defend those undoable punishment things in Islam, but I do want to register that I hold them to be wrong. I don't ever expect to change that view, either. So our dialogue will have to have the leeway for this kind of permanent disagreement.

To be clear, though, my disagreement is not so much with Islam, but with anybody or any organization that does these things. That, obviously, includes the social structures on my end.

I agree with you Michael, which is precisely why I don't agree with it being used in every case. There are too many examples of innocent people being proven guilty today thanks to DNA evidence etc long after they have been put to death.

You mentioned on Solo Passion that Islam was essentially libertarian and presented a very interesting take on it. I don't see that argument convincing Western libertarians and Objectivists, but I do see it getting the job done with Muslims. I am interested in exploring the reasoning behind it. I think you might be on to something...

Michael

I did put a few links of articles that you may be interested in Michael on that page it's at http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254 I hope you can check them out and then check the links to those organizations out too.

[*] Muhammad and his followers started wars to enlarge their empire and Muhammad himself engaged in battle and killed people.

Which war was it that Muhammad started? Yes, he did indeed kill people in combat and criminals sentenced to death. But he was the leader of a nation and an army. The Commander-in-Chief if you will.

[*] Women currently are not allowed to open bank accounts if they are not accompanied by men. In Saudi Arabia, they can't drive cars. How could they have had the right to vote when men

didn't either?

Well, I'm not quite sure what makes you think that I'm actually going to defend those practices in places like Saudi Arabia, I never said that they were conforming with Islam.

[*] The slave trade continued for a thousand years after Muhammad. Up to a million Europeans were captured and taken into slavery by Muslim pirates in North Africa and the Middle East. In fact, the fledgling United States sent war ships to the Mediterranean to combat Muslim pirates. Black Africans were also taken into slavery in large numbers and were often treated brutally.

Islam forbade such things, if Muslims partook in them then they did so against the teachings of Islam. I might remind you that the majority of those Africans taken into slavery were indeed Muslims also.

[*] I don't know anything about the treatment of orphans.

It's an interesting thing to research.

[*] I agree that the tribalism that existed prior to Islam was often brutal, but unifying the world under a religious dictatorship is not my idea of successfully combating it.

Often brutal is hardly a word for it. When you can go to war at the drop of a hat and bury your baby daughters alive because they're just another mouth to feed. It's far beyond brutal. I don't think it was a religious dictatorship though.

[*] Religious minorities were treated as dhimmi. They may have had some legal rights and may have been tolerated, but they were treated as inferior to Muslims. Islam has always practiced a form of religious bigotry towards non-Muslims.

I think you should re examine the issue, what Islam states through the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him is completely the opposite. Just because throughout history some dhimmi were treated as if they were inferior it can't be blamed on Islam, rather it's blamed on the person who went to extremes against what Islam said.

Do you have any evidence that those thinkers were positively influenced (or influenced at all) by Islam?

There was a quote in one of the articles I provided links for on the SOLO website which also included a link to a book I think the information is on there.

Having said that, despite these monarchs and caliphs being in power, the Muslim world has indeed achieved much in the ideas of science, medicine, economics and politics, this of course at the same time that Europe was in the dark ages, where science was repressed, slavery allowed and tyranny was rampant. It was Islam's influence on sciences through the Muslim empires in places like Cordoba and Baghdad that helped encourage Europe's Renaissance and ultimately lead to the West's Age of Enlightenment.

I am doubtful of the foregoing claims. As I say, I haven't researched the issue recently, but my understanding is that most of the advances in science made by the Persians and ancient Babylonians occurred before Islam took over. Can you give some specific examples of advancements in the areas of science, medicine, economics and politics that advanced under Islam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna is just one, I think if you google something like Islamic Philosophers and Islam's contribution to science or medicine you should find some more.

As I was researching this post, I found an interesting article about Islam, war, slavery and Thomas Jefferson. Here are some relevant points.

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.

I think the words of the Abassador are particularly revealing. He quotes the Koran (Quran) as stating that Muslims have the right and duty to make war upon and enslave non-Muslims. I have read similar things in other places. If I get around to it, I might dig it up in my copy of the Koran. At any rate, the edicts of the Koran are far from benign.

Darrell

Well to be honest, I believe that any person will use anything they can to justify their lust for money and power, religion or science (like with today's carbon trading). But that still doesn't mean that Islam is to blame.

.

I do not get that from the "Muslims" in Dearborn who are demanding to implement Sharia law. I am sure that DG would confirm the "Islamic problem" that is festering in Denmark, Holland etc.

What are they trying to get implemented in Shariah law?

Michael,

I understand what you're trying to do. It would be great if libertarian impulses could be discovered within Islam. That might help the Islamic world transition to a more freedom oriented posture. But, we should not make light of the non-libertarian impulses within Islam. It must be Islam that changes, not our view of it. We cannot accept or even tolerate practices that limit our freedom or the freedoms of other people. In any compromise between good and evil, ...

Darrell

It's not Islam that requires changing. It's people's interpretation that needs to be addressed. This is a huge mistake that the West keeps making, when people start talking about making Islam Progress, Modernize, Change etc, they play into the hands of the people who've perverted the religion to the current state of practice and point to the verse in the Qur'an that states:

"They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein." (Qur'an 2:217)

This line of thinking is completely unnecessary, Islam doesn't require changing at all, we just need to get back to the original message that Muhammad, peace be upon him taught.

[Libertarian Muslim]

So my first question to this poster would start at the base: "What is the primary source for your belief?" (More later).

Hello Xray, welcome to the conversation!

The primary sources that we look at in Islam are the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The latter being complimentary to the first as we believe that Muhammad, peace be upon him was the human example for us to follow.

Is that what you're asking or are you asking why I believe what I believe?

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am blanking out my post in the interest of the Moderator's agenda (which I believe to be an error). But make no mistake -- I detest the making of Excuses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 3, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Please...

Nothing is gained from intentionally insulting someone in such a vile manner.

Do that over at Solo Passion if you like. They encourage that kind of stuff there.

I am trying to build a rational bridge to a billion and a half people.

You are trying to stop it from being built before it even gets started.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Bullshit! Look at what Muslims do. By their doings you shall know what they are.

Right now the world champion suicide bombers and plane hijackers are Muslims.

In the carbomb and i.e.d. olympics Mulsims have the Gold.

So much for that pedophile Mohamed (pus and blisters upon him) and his followers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh please.

If a person is driving a car recklessly breaking the road rules and happens to get in an accident. Is the fault that of the road rules or of the driver for not following them?

Islam is pretty clear on killing non-combatants. Heck even Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi State says that suicide bombings are forbidden in Islam. Yet it's still done.

I could judge any ideology based on it's supposed adherents according to your logic, but the fact is that at the end of the day, you'd be judging the adherents and not the religion.

also, Muhammad pbuh was not a pedophile. You need to research more.