> Split Discussion on Freedom of Thought, Speech and Action

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

It's similar to the dictation and enforcement of democracy and secularism in the Muslim world were if governments don't subscribe to the stated requisite of western ideals, then you will be the recipient of economic sanctions and any other totalitarian enforcement imposed on those who don't agree with your ideals

is that the forcing of your beleifs on others that your talking about.

Yes I totally understand what you are saying all I am asking is would you, would Islam be even handed about it or would you it enforce its version of government etc if it had the power to do so?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Yes I totally understand what you are saying all I am asking is would you, would Islam be even handed about it or would you it enforce its version of government etc if it had the power to do so?

That is a stupid question. That is like asking would a democratically driven warmonger would implement "freedom, democracy, and secularism"

secondly, Yes, Non muslims are not to enter the cities of Mecca and Medina. They can go anywhere else in the world, even the land of Baitul-Maqdis (the holy land), but there is a specific evidence which dictates the prevention of non muslims in the two cities.

The law is understood in serving the right of three entities

1. Allah
2. The cities
3. The Muslims

and in the Islamic governance, it is more weightier to fulfill the rights of what is more beneficial to the community than to any singular or exceptional entities.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

That is a stupid question. That is like asking would a democratically driven warmonger would implement "freedom, democracy, and secularism" secondly, Yes, Non muslims are not to enter the cities of Mecca and Medina. They can go anywhere else in the world, even the land of Baitul-Maqdis (the holy land), but there is a specific evidence which dictates the prevention of non muslims in the two cities. The law is understood in serving the right of three entities

1. Allah
2. The cities
3. The Muslims

and in the Islamic governance, it is more weightier to fulfill the rights of what is more beneficial to the community than to any singular or exceptional entities.

There are no such things as stupid question and if you take that attitude no one will ask you anything - there may though be stupid answers.

However, I note your analogy and I conclude that there is no differences between Islamic and democratic states in this respect as each will enact laws that it feels are right and bring benefits and that therefore, some or perhaps many will feel oppression because of that to their personal freedoms.

[al-boriqee]

While there are stupid questions in this world, I did not think of your question as that stupid rather I was signifying that that phrase to denote how obvious the answer would become if something was contrasted with it. There is a form of argument that the arabs developed which basically state that

"the reality of a thing can truly be exposed based on its opposite"

[huehuecoyotl]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

So why the hell has your system created an entire fabrication called anti-semitism, and why have 14 european countries legally made it a crime to speak about people's own thoughts on the holocaust if it does not match the alleged information accepted by conventional wisdom.

You are right there should be no laws against speaking out against the holocaust. Those people who deny it may be deemed deficient in reasoning but shouldn't be punished for their ideals. I'm glad to see you hold free speech in such high regard.

More importantly, if what the heell you said is right, then why the hell does your law punish with the crime of treason for the mere act of burning the flag.

It doesn't reason is only for "high crimes and misdemeanors". No one at least in the US has been convicted of treason for burning the flag.

This is how stupid and low you people are willing to go that your even willing to make yourself look like a fool.

No, freedom of speech is not that. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means exactly what it says. Freedom of speech is not the right to offend others who inherently do not have the right to offend you.

Freedom of speech entails that in the event that some nutjob basket case speaks venom against islam, then when people collaborate together to "protect" this fagots right to "free speech", then that same process is extended to the one who can speak venom against fagots and their homosexual desires.

Freedom of speech is not that when such a basket case islamaphobe comes to attack Islam for whatever reasons worth less than the excrement of my cat, then when people like you come to his aid in defense of his "right" to free speech, then all is well, but when speech is uttered at as an expose to the reality of a fagot or the tyranny of jews, such people are stripped of that same right given to the fagot because those 'issues" are taboo and are beyond the scope of free lance views outside of the established viewpoint.

Free speech means the ability to say what you wish, to critize or critique as you wish without fear of reprocussion. This should extend to all people and parties. None should be exempted.

you have something similar. it is called 'hate speech", and while these are not crimes yet, I don't think we are all too far off with this extreme socialist in the office.

Que sera sera. The future is not ours to see.

ah ha
Got ya

So you do admit that not everything is "equal". I am going to exploit this oppurtunity now to ask you that since you have just admitted that not all things are equal, then what is your criterion or constitution that formats how you determine the extent of a culture, religion's, or sexualorientation's value.

I disagree with boxer. Everyone should be equal in the sense that they are free from coercion from others.

unlike your philosophy which is based on people having to submit to other people's wishes when they do not desire to do so, Our philosophy is based on "for every action there is a reaction".

That really isn't even a philosophy.

firstly, the reason why your country is in debt to begin with is multi-faceted, that being
1. the allowance of interest based monetary systems thus creating the common clause "the illusion of wealth" i.e. wealth that is not there

Interest is simply an assessment of risk. It creates no illusion of wealth.

2. the mass and exponential transport of virtually all civil industry to China in the mid 70s and onward which shifted the wealth from the western hemisphere and pumped it into the eastern hemisphere

As far as all this isn't close to being true. The combined western hemisphere is still the number 1 export region in the world, but soon will be overtaken by China. This isn't a bad thing at all. As China grows in wealth they will consume more and the western hemisphere will produce more. The US will become a net exporter again. The transition will be painful, but necessary and not at all bad.

3. lastly, but not leaslty, in light of the above historical monetary fact, the invention of the credit based system exploded in the late 70s and earlyon in the 80thusexpanding the vacum of "the illusion of wealth" to astronomical proportions thatno drug thatis taxed is going to be able to lift you out of.

This has to do with the Fed's ability to manipulate currency but this is correct.

1. the american government does not think in terms of "what is best for the country" but more in terms of "what is best for the cause". In terms of money, they are benefiting more of these drugs being illegal rather than legal. It is not an issue of trying to help the country more than it is about how to acquire more money. To make it legal would entail
a. the migration of that wealth from the hands of who are criminals on the basis of the drug bring illegal (meaning once the drug is legal, they are no longer criminal) and its transfer to pharmeceutical industry. You see, with weed being illegal (and for that matter all other drugs), it benefits the government from the top on down to local governments.

Agreed legalize all drugs.

not really. I found after some research that many of the political founders had roots from their ancestors who were affected by Islamic thought. many of the ideals within it inherently were from a borrowed version of Islam. Its just that once your country went down the path of military industrial complex thereby adopting a hegemonic foreign policy, it reformatted and re-shapped the original intent of the founders inspite of the fact that everyone of the founding "fathers" of your country were in complete disarray with regards to forming the constitution as each group were advocating their own philosophy to be the central theme of the american diaspora and experience.

If it floats your boat to believe they borrowed a lot of ideas from Islam go ahead.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by huehuecoyotl

You are right there should be no laws against speaking out against the holocaust. Those people who deny it may be deemed deficient in reasoning but shouldn't be punished for their ideals. I'm glad to see you hold free speech in such high regard.

thank you. I just wished that the one who was the direct recipient of my speech also understood as you have. oh well. I was merely pointing out a double standard in that if you are going to call your ideas the pinnacle of free speech, then at least live up to the claim or don't call it free speech at all.

Im not an advocate of free speech.

It doesn't reason is only for "high crimes and misdemeanors". No one at least in the US has been convicted of treason for burning the flag.

well, I was on a tangent when saying that however, maybe the following might be of interest to you

Back in 1989, the Supreme Court declared (Texas v. Johnson) that the Constitution bars any law against burning the American flag. This was a surprising new discovery on the Court's part. According to The American Legion, five Supreme Court rulings prior to Texas v. Johnson upheld the people's right to protect the flag from public gestures of contempt. For more than 100 years, the federal government and as many as forty-nine states had laws to do just that. Polls in the 1990's indicated that 80 percent of the American people wanted to retain those laws The American Legion statements quoted were taken from a Letter to the Editor published by The Washington Post on July 25, 1998. The letter's author was Anthony G. Jordan, the Legion's National Commander.

This is how stupid and low you people are willing to go that your even willing to make yourself look like a fool.

the reality of this is really dependent upon the nature of the one having such a view.

Free speech means the ability to say what you wish, to critize or critique as you wish without fear of reprocussion. This should extend to all people and parties. None should be exempted.

thats fine and this is the meaning that I concur with. The problem comes when most advocates in todays world do not enact the primary meaning and only employ it from a narrow angle to the exclusion of other angles or only to a particular group to the exclusion of others
This is where my personal problem lies at.

secondly, as a concept, the reason why Im not an advocate for free speech is because the very doctrine itself causes more problems than it does to solve them and when this philosophy is applied in a systematic level through legislation, it creates an insurmountable amount of problems. That is why there is NO nation on the planet who espouses this doctrine except that it has at least 2 issues where it censors speech.

Que sera sera. The future is not ours to see.

ohala que no, pero no es importante pa mi, soy muslimano

I disagree with boxer. Everyone should be equal in the sense that they are free from coercion from others.

Good, I see you have much more sense than the other two

That really isn't even a philosophy.

that is the best part about it. Its not rocket science, it is basic, simple, and most of all, the most reasonable of all views.

Interest is simply an assessment of risk. It creates no illusion of wealth.

these are not my words, these are the words of the western world.

allow me to show you the deception it plays

If monetary value defines wealth, then the first concern should be the protection of the value of the currency. Which brings us to "Market Forces" and "Fixed Currency Exchange Rates."
Thus if the values of any or all currencies are left to "Market Forces" ---- then any or all governments are responsible for the loss in wealth of their citizens. Wherever wealth lies, the illusion of wealth will also reside AS LONG AS NATIONS FAIL TO PROTECT CURRENCY VALUES.
Putting this factor aside, the manipulation of interest rates --- for whatever reason, diminishes wealth. As an example, let us use any currency, and a manipulation of interest rates, to see how effectively a currency value is diminished. A value of $ 1 Million invested at 6% will generate an income of $60,000 per year. Now take the same investment ----and interest rates that have been diminished to 3% ---and the income derived will have dropped to $30,000 per year. Thus the "value" of that $1 Million has effectively halved. It will now take $2 Million in order to generate the same "income wealth" as was previously inherently within the currency.
So when interest rates are manipulated to encourage consumer spending, it in actual fact has two opposite effects. For those who have income derived from interest rate sources, their spending power dramatically drops, as their income diminishes, while those who have no more "wealth generation" ( salary or wage increases ) are forced to resort to additional debt --- in order to spend more. Thus in reality both parties have suffered a diminution in wealth ---- for DEBT, at whatever interest rate it bears --- is still money "owing" and thus a diminution of future income which has to be repaid.

it is exactly this economic jargon put into practice that takes a good percentage in the fault of this mini melt down we have experienced some time ago

As far as all this isn't close to being true. The combined western hemisphere is still the number 1 export region in the world, but soon will be overtaken by China. This isn't a bad thing at all. As China grows in wealth they will consume more and the western hemisphere will produce more. The US will become a net exporter again. The transition will be painful, but necessary and not at all bad.

firstly, your speaking of the future whereas I ams speaking concerning what has already happened, mainly on what instigated this to begin with.

secondly, this was not my claim. I was unable to find the research, but the research was unlike the tabloid journalism that plagues the net. However since i can;t cite it to you, the main essence of it was geared towards truely and properly identifying the factors that gave way for what happened,
1. the exporting of labor to china (basically outsourcing) in the 70s
2. adding to that the formation of the credit system
3. the intricacies of the housing industry

most common people trace the crisis back to point 3 and have no idea how the other two were great contributors. If I find it I will post it

Agreed legalize all drugs.

pot head

If it floats your boat to believe they borrowed a lot of ideas from Islam go ahead.

it doesn't
I don't believe they borrowed a lot of their ideas. I merely stated how some concepts may have been taken from histories Islamic implementation of it.

[Tema]

I only read the title. I'm against the freedom of action, because people copy eachother. If someone dresses unislamically, an innocent child who was never thought how to dress would copy him/her.
From who do people inherit their behavior?

Same goes for the rest.

Peace

[huehuecoyotl]

Originally Posted by Unknown

I only read the title. I'm against the freedom of action, because people copy eachother. If someone dresses unislamically, an innocent child who was never thought how to dress would copy him/her.
From who do people inherit their behavior?

Same goes for the rest.

Peace

So? The child will learn to make their own decisions. They will decide to wear what they want, whether that be Islamic or not. If they aren't able to decide for themselves, it follows that they wouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

[Tema]

Originally Posted by huehuecoyotl

So? The child will learn to make their own decisions. They will decide to wear what they want, whether that be Islamic or not. If they aren't able to decide for themselves, it follows that they wouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

How does a person decide what to wear and what not to wear? How will they know they will responsible for their actions and with whom on this life and the hereafter? So? You would allow your innocent child to be responsible for their own actions who cannot distinguish between the right and wrong?!

How do you know what is right or wrong? Do you not follow a way of life? If you believe in God, you should have a reason to believe that Allah did not create us in vain and wants us to live in a way that pleases Him for our own good on this life and the hereafter.

A child at that age doesn't follow a scripture, but the environment. Later on, they have a brain and they can think for themselves wether I forced them to do a thing or nor.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Hi huehuecoyotl
Remember that there are a whole bunch of people on earth. So even though this sounds paradoxal, in order to maximize freedom, you inevitably have to set laws which limit freedom. In simple terms: to prevent one person from limiting another person's freedom. this also means that unlimited freedom is utopic, and un-existing in nature.

That being said, when analysing Islamic laws, we often find that there seems to be a priority to maximising "well-being" rather then maximising "freedom". That isn't to say that there doesn't exist freedom in Islam, just that in many rules, freedom seems to have been limited in order to obtain a higher level of well-being instead.