Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

On this thread philosophy-dubai/islam-and-the-west-t43028-15.html
FD says that he never wished to live in a society where he thinks there is no personal freedom..
His claims are:

Islam is portrayed as an universal ideology, wanting to replace Western values and especially the aggresiveness of Judaism with the sharia as universal justice. Not only that, but it should be the ONLY ideology. No personal freedom. Positive to some not so desirable for others.
------
Justice
The concept of justice embodied in Sharia is entirely different from that of secular Western law. Muslims believe the Sharia law has been revealed by God. In Islam, the laws that govern human affairs are just one facet of a universal set of laws governing nature itself. Violations of Islamic law are offenses against God and nature, including one's own human nature. Crime in Islam is sin. Whatever crime is committed, whatever punishment is prescribed for that crime in this world, one must ultimately answer to God on the Day of Judgement
------
Next to amputations, the homophobe stance of Islamic justice is an objection. And as specified before condoning wife beating. Inequality is a problem for me, between men and women and Muslims and non-believers....etc etc.

FD objects to Islamic principles through which the ultimate goal is to establish and regulate a righteous society. In this sense there is no possibility that a righteous society can be reached, unless it also deals with the fundamental object in that society called "human" and its "nature from creation" that also has the ability to incline towards wrong doing.
So while God deals with civil liberties to establish a society amongst what he creates, he also deals with human nature(behaviour)of what he creates without which we cannot sustain those civil liberties lasting very long time in one society before it start to spread in destruction to others..

Freedom is "the power to choose and determine one's position". As such, man should choose and decide carefully on a course of action which would best benefit himself and others.

Freedom does not mean to satisfy all his instincts. Nor does it mean to give into the pressure of lusts and desires. Behaviour should be guided always by our inane sense of what is right and should not be motivated by our desire for pleasure or immediate gratification.

The freedom that Islam grants is based on commitment and responsibility without which there can be no true freedom. Freedom without restraints leads only to nihilism, the consequence of which is the complete breakdown of the moral and social order.

The irresponsible concept of freedom expounded by existentialism, democracy and modern theories of freedom of expression lead only to corruption and immorality since they are not tied to any concept higher moral values or self control. For Islam, freedom lies in commitment and responsibility. They form an integral part of each other and can in no way be separated. There is no freedom of choice without responsibility; no responsibility without freedom.

http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/c ... reedom.htm

So what do you understand from personal freedom FD? Give us thorough explanation and tell us what you defend and why with its consequences included!..
A good argument always has introduction i.e.(we shoud allow homesexuality) and conclusion(good or bad) as always..

Personal freedom for me is to be able to express myself. In public I have responsibilities towards society though, however in private I can do whatever I want without physically hurting another person (or stealing or committing pedophilia). No religion or goverment should tell me what to do in private within limits already specified.

Well, those that use religion to curb freedom of expression that does not hurt others are wrong.

I've argued that Islam does not condone curtailing this type of freedom of speech, but do concede that there are some Muslims that think Islam outlaws blasphemy and apostacy - I disagree with these Muslims and rather agree with the likes of Muhammad Zafrullah Khan who show from Quran etc that this is unIslamic (to punish blasphemers or apostates).

http://www.alislam.org/books/apostacy/index.html

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Well, those that use religion to curb freedom of expression that does not hurt others are wrong.

Unforunately theocracies tend to curb se.xual expression of people in private

Heck, if you let a priest into your bedroom - that's only your fault!

I personally think that certain forms of s.exual expression should be curbed and so do most lawmakers - the only question is where to draw the line. There's little argument about incest, necrophillia, paedophillia etc - and many a secular society has outlawed sodomy and homosexuality until relatively recently, on grounds that they were perversions and bad for society.

But you're right, almost all religions do impose stricter s.exual limits than say the Netherlands does.

Cheers,
Shafique

I should be able to have a threesome (with 2 adult single females of course ) in my private room, thats also personal freedom for me.

Yes, I understand that.

Society has to make a judgement whether this s.exual freedom is good for society and should be legislated against or not. As it stands, most countries of the world will not bat an eye at a gang-bang - and all the guys will cite their personal freedom to do so.

As I said, most religions would indeed forbid such a three-some (even within a marriage) - but such is society now that this is considered a desirable fantasy of many, just a bit harder to come by than one-night-stands.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Society has to make a judgement whether this s.exual freedom is good for society

Thats where I draw one of the lines between public and private and personal freedom: the bed! Laws shouldn't curb my personal freedom in bed. I am not hurting anybody. As Dr. Phil says "if you like it, and she likes it, then it is OK".

Religion allows to be what you are within yourself in your privacy however you have to practice what is within yourself without influencing others contrary to the manners ordained as appropriate..
That’s because inane lust and pleasure also has tendency to spread due to words/description of mouth to one another. Can you see any responsibility if one is encouraged or seduced in that direction…
A 100 years ago we didn’t know much about homosexuality or aids or spoken openly in public, now its spreading like something that everyone should be tasting as if it’s something normal..
So much so that we now have guy politicians…Should we all one day legalize homosexuality if they outnumber heterosexuals?…Can you just tell me what it’s consequences would be in society?

Interesting to see how shafique's claims of freedom being allowed under Islam fall like a house of cards when subjected to higher scrutiny.

The talking points become less convincing after a while.

Thats sounds very homophobic, Berrin.

What you and Shafique seem to argue is that public health always prevails over personal freedom. Thats very dangerous ground and should be dealt with very very carefully. If somebody wants to smoke a sigaret and/or have a glass of whiskey (one is actually healthy) in their own house, than we shouldn't limit those personal freedoms. I donot think an overweight person should be forced by the state to diet.

China, for example, is clearly crossing the boundaries of personal freedom versus societies interest with their one child policies. Moreover fornicators and adulterers should not be lashed, stoned, or punished at all.

-- Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:37 pm --

event horizon wrote:Interesting to see how shafique's claims of freedom being allowed under Islam fall like a house of cards when subjected to higher scrutiny.

Freedom and justice are different things to different kind of people. Without defining them they are empty, hollow words. The word civilian by itself is also a meaningless phrase.

Thats sounds very homophobic, Berrin.

Funny you can't explain but just accuse..

Please try and answer my question to continue..
So much so that we now have guy politicians…Should we all, one day legalize homosexuality if they outnumber heterosexuals?…Can you just tell me what it’s consequences would be in society?

If somebody wants to smoke a sigaret and/or have a glass of whiskey (one is actually healthy) in their own house, than we shouldn't limit those personal freedoms. I donot think an overweight person should be forced by the state to diet.

Do you ever have the mind power/ability to escalate further to think of consequences when negligence goes beyond ones boundary? and it's effect on person, family or by large on society...?
Can you gurantee that all individuals can assess what all that boundry is and that they can achieve it to abide?

What about u Berrin, Do u have the mind power/ability to understand unnecessary restrictions can result in what kind of beliefs/actions/complexes?

For example, you said u would be stimulated by seeing a toe of a woman!!?

Berrin wrote:Should we all, one day legalize homosexuality if they outnumber heterosexuals?

Homosexuality should be legalized no matter their numbers.

Berrin wrote:…Can you just tell me what it’s consequences would be in society?

That one part of personal freedom, human adult sexuality, is ingrained into the law.

Berrin wrote:Can you gurantee that all individuals can assess what all that boundry is and that they can achieve it to abide?

What boundary? A smoker, a person who drinks 5 beers a day, an overweight person, all have detrimental effects on society. Hell, I would even argue that whole peoples trying to memorize the Quran day in day out and do nothing else is bad for society as a whole. Still, personal freedom means to me that people have the freedom to choose those things themselves. Like I said, part of personal freedom for me is that I can do in private whatever I want, within limits already mentioned. The bed is sacred and should not be dictated from outside.

End of the debate due to failure to produce thought and conviction..

Can you just tell me what it’s consequences would be in society?

IDK berrin.

What do you think would happen if homosexuality was legal in society ?

Most Western nations accept homosexuality. They seem to be doing fine....

It seems like the more societies progress, the more tolerant they become.

In any event, I don't think there will ever be a time in society when people are more openly homosexual than heterosexual. But with all the orphans there are in the world, I don't think we need to be worried about producing more children.

Why not adopt the ones already here ?

Besides, abortion, contraceptives and education (marrying later, etc) has probably reduced the population more than homosexual activity.

Do you ever have the mind power/ability to escalate further to think of consequences when negligence goes beyond ones boundary?

What happens in your home stays in your home is a pretty good rule for me.

Why do you think two Gays will negatively affect society ? They don't have a family to corrupt ....

And if you want to cite stats, by any objectionable measure, it could be argued that 'Chavs' and Pakistani immigrants in Britain, Blacks in the US, Armenians in Turkey and Lebanon, Turks and Kurds in Germany, Roma in Europe and Copts in Egypt have a greater overall negative effect in society than homosexuals do. Only AIDs and other diseases seem to be associated with gays, and that's just gay men, while homelessness, violent crime, welfare, etc., are not issues associated with gays.

But I agree with you, Gay men adopting children is something I'm uncomfortable with. Ditto with getting 'former' women pregnant so they can start a family.

Well eh - may I ask you why YOU think God is against homose.xuality in most religious disciplines? The Bible and Quran are clear on this point.

Until recently, much of your country and certainly my country outlawed homose.xuality.

Why did they do that? Was God/the USA intolerant in the past- what has changed since?

On a personal level, I have a lot of sympathy with the 'what happens in your bedroom is your business' view and quite happily live by this rule myself when it comes to judging others (its a bit like - 'don't ask, don't tell'). Just like I have a personal rule that I won't steal - it is a code I follow regardless of any external laws.

But I personally don't have a good answer to those who say - God forbids homos.exuality and He knows best. What is your answer to that?

Cheers,
Shafique

My guess is that the Bible doesn't have a concept of homosexuality.

Homosexuality, as we know it and apply it today, is a modern construct with a different understanding now of relationships between the same sexes to the time when the Bible was revealed - in the New Testament period, homosexuality wasn't an issue of two consenting adults in a 'loving' relationship who keep to themselves but was between a man and a boy in a master/slave context or sometimes associated with Paganism or lewd behavior in the bath houses.

event horizon wrote:My guess is that the Bible doesn't have a concept of homosexuality.

You've got me there eh. I didn't expect that one.

But humour me, are these following verses not from the Bible? In what way are they an out-dated concept of homo-s.exuality?

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus: 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

1 Kings 14:24

And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

And there are even passages in the NT, eg:
1Timothy 1:10

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Are these verses not clearly saying that s.ex between two men is an abomination?

And the Church in the past has been pretty clear on the subject - it is a sin. Were they wrong?

Cheers,
Shafique

Are these verses not clearly saying that s.ex between two men is an abomination?

Did I not clearly say that the ancient world's understanding of homosexuality is different from our understanding of it ?

Good grief. Learn to read and digest material.

eh, look at my post again, I quoted what you said about the Bible and then quoted from the Bible. The Bible is pretty clear about the concept of Homos.exuality that it is calling an abomination. I think you are grasping at straws if you are arguing that there weren't loving stable homos.exual relationships when the Bible was written - yet the Bible calls the act of s.ex between men an abomination, and the Church forbade this act (not just Gay bars and parades, but the act).


I also asked you above (in the post you replied to):

shafique wrote:Well eh - may I ask you why YOU think God is against homose.xuality in most religious disciplines? The Bible and Quran are clear on this point.

Until recently, much of your country and certainly my country outlawed homose.xuality.

Why did they do that? Was God/the USA intolerant in the past- what has changed since?
..
But I personally don't have a good answer to those who say - God forbids homos.exuality and He knows best. What is your answer to that?

So, has God changed his mind? How can you tell which parts of the Bible are 'stuck in the past' and should now be ignored? (serious question)

Cheers,
Shafique