> Split Discussion on Freedom of Thought, Speech and Action

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

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.

More or less agree with this but I don't think anyone anywhere would define freedom as the ability to say and do anything and many definitions speak about freedom of conscience as a basic freedom and that perhaps would agree with your notion of limiting in the sense that one should not interfere in matters of conscience.

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.

If I may say so this sounds a little paradoxical as one might reasonably suppose that freedom is a major part of any ones feeling of well-being? Of course one needs law but they cannot be thought of as static since institutions and circumstances change. Without law one can descend into chaos but there is the other aspect hinted at by Winston Churchill who said "If you have 10,000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law"

[al-boriqee]

I think many of you philosophically inclined speaker are caste aloof of how the reality of rights are understood.

A scholar of shariah and modern international law commented on the difference where in reality there is no real stark difference between these human rights and Islams shariah except on terminology and on the ordering of sequence. I think everyone here will benefit from the following as stated by Shaykh Nyazee. The following is an excerpt on "The Distinction Between Islamic and Western Systems of Rights"

it stated

Distinction Between the Islamic and Western
Systems of Rights

We have approached the problem of human rights in Islam from
various perspectives. A big void will be left in the discussion if we
do not indicate the vital differences or distinctions between the
approach of human rights in the Western systems and the Islamic
legal system. In the description of the reservations by Muslim
countries, made with respect to the CRC, we have seen that only
a few specific and minor issues have been raised, like adoption.
When we examine a declaration of rights, like the Cairo Declaration
on Human Rights in Islam, or even attempts by Muslim
scholars to elaborate the various types of rights in Islam, we find
that there is almost no difference between the two positions. In addition to this, the core areas of the two systems, something that
has been called the “minimum content of natural law” by H. L.
A. Hart,147 are almost identical. Where lies the problem then?
What is all the discussion about?
The differences are understood when we notice that individual
rights mean very little in themselves, unless they are related to
other competing rights and interests. The system of rights is an
integrated whole. The rights support each other and clash with
each other often requiring delicate balancing by the lawmaker and
judge. In other words, it is all a question of reconciliation, preference
and priorities that a legal system has determined for itself.
The priorities within the two systems we are considering are quite
different. This can be grasped by examining the jurisprudential
interests or the value-system within the Western legal systems
and the purposes of Islamic law called the maq¯as. id al-shar¯ı‘ah.
In the Islamic legal system there are five purposes that the system
seeks to secure: preservation of the religious system (d¯ın),
preservation of life, preservation of the family unit and its values,
preservation of the intellect and the preservation of wealth. The
priority assigned to these purposes exists in the order these have
been stated. Thus, a child’s right to information, which falls under
the preservation of his intellect, is limited by the interests that are
superior to it; namely, family, life and religious system. Likewise,
freedom of expression, again represented by intellect, will be restrained
if it attempts to demolish an interest that is superior to
it. In another work we suggested that these interests are different
from those upheld in the West, and those in the West may be
in the reverse order. Whether or not this is proved to be true, the
two systems are different, and the distinction lies in the priorities
followed within the two systems. We have been using the term
“Western legal system,” but we include the system represented
by the UN as part of this system, or as representing it, unless the
norms of other systems are acknowledged in concrete terms.


________________________________________

and this is similar to what i said in a work I did a while back regarding the obkectives of our law vs western law, where in western law, the superior principles of life are in reverse from the Islamic perspective, mainly money and property come first, and then the preservation of life, and then the preservation of the intellect, and then of honor, and then of religion which takes the back seat.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

In the Islamic legal system there are five purposes that the system seeks to secure:

preservation of the religious system,
preservation of life,
preservation of the family unit and its values,
preservation of the intellect and
preservation of wealth.

The priority assigned to these purposes exists in the order these have
been stated.

One might argue that the 5 ideas here are in themselves good, meaning things one might want to create or preserve. However, I have two issues:

1. These are interrelated so one cannot preserve a religious system without the intellect to understand it or how say family values might be preserved without wealth in which the family might be sustained so I have some misgivings about the notion of priorities here or more particularly, fixed priorities.

2. How will this work in practice, will such a system guarantee the preservation of let say a Christian heritage for example in the UK and never seek to change that or is this system discriminatory and only wishes to preserve Islam?

3. Finally, one wonders where conscience comes into this list? For examples, someone may want to leave Islam or disagree with it. So it seems to me that preservation of personal freedom does not even figure in this list?

As I understand it most Muslim countries have signed the UN declaration of human rights but subordinate it in some schizophrenic manner to sharia because in many cases it negate the effect of the UNDH. There is the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights but it contains no equivalent of article 18 (on freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the former. In practice this has resulted, again and again of important rights being denied to people in Islamic countries on the grounds that it contravenes sharia.

So the article does nothing more than restate the orthodox Islamic position but does nothing to deal with the impasse I have just described.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Hi

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

More or less agree with this but I don't think anyone anywhere would define freedom as the ability to say and do anything and many definitions speak about freedom of conscience as a basic freedom and that perhaps would agree with your notion of limiting in the sense that one should not interfere in matters of conscience.

I'm not sure what "freedom of conscience" actually means. Do you mean to let people free in forming their opinions on what they consider "conscious" acts?
Or do you mean the freedom to follow ones conscience?

If the former, I guess I can agree since there is no compulsion in religion. So people cannot be forced to believe something they do not believe.
If the latter, I'm inclined to disagree. Conscience is easily biased, corrupted and even completely ignored by some people altogether. So a vacuum of guidance seems highly dangerous. In fact I think that such an absence of guidance is what lies at the cause of so many problems in western society.

If I may say so this sounds a little paradoxical as one might reasonably suppose that freedom is a major part of any ones feeling of well-being?

Well first of all you just admitted that this is not an issue of free vs. not free. But rather an issue of what the justifiable amount of restrictions on freedom is. And so I do believe that Islam provides the freedom of individuality that humans have as a psychological need. In my opinion, the restrictions which shariah place on freedoms are not at all problematic in that sense. Furthermore I would even say I consider it a bit of an exageration to call this a major part of any ones feeling of well-being. While I grant that some people might place high importance in this, this is merely due to their political views, which have them place a much higher importance to a minor psychological need.
For example, if one were to limit one's speech so that he would never be able to say a swearword, tis person could still live a full and furfilling enjoyable life.

Of course one needs law but they cannot be thought of as static since institutions and circumstances change.

Well that depends where you're coming from. If you believe shariah is manmade, then indeed the logical conclusion would be a necesity to adapt to new situations. However if you believe that it is divinely created. Then an omnipotent, omniscient God, would make it so that it is perfectly applicable at all times.

Without law one can descend into chaos but there is the other aspect hinted at by Winston Churchill who said "If you have 10,000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law"

The law Churchil refers to here is a secular law. Obviously devine law is comepletely different, because people don't merely follow it out of respect for the principle, but out of faith and piousness.
I'd also like to point, that when discussing rules in theory, they often seems a lot ore difficult then in practice when you're actually living by the rules. That is because rules focus on what's forbidden. To illustrate this, consider food. If you would list all sorts of food that is haram for muslims, it might seem troublesome and overwhelming to some people. However if you would make a list of all foods that are allowed, a list that is allot larger then the previous list, one would still see the abundance of choice and freedom one has in the matter.

[SilverLJ]

I think I mean there are certain things in life where it does not seem right for law to intrude such as freedom of religion or freedom in thought. But always to me conscience has a moral dimension so prompts, if that is the right word, us towards what is good. It is true as you indicate that some people are as we say morally bankrupt and have lost all sense of good and bad but for them law has no value either and guidance if for the weak.

I don't think I spoke of justifiable amounts of freedom but rather that certain freedoms stand above others. Sharia may not be a problem for you but it would for me as I would want to be critical of Islam; I would want to be able to say for example that the Qu'ran is not in my opinion the word of God or speak of certain acts of the prophet as reprehensible. Sharai will not allow this will it?

Well that depends where you're coming from. If you believe shariah is manmade, then indeed the logical conclusion would be a necesity to adapt to new situations. However if you believe that it is divinely created. Then an omnipotent, omniscient God, would make it so that it is perfectly applicable at all times.

Well I consider it largely man made since if your look at its foundations: qu'ran, sunna, consensus and analogy one can see that....
Moderator's comment: Section of post deleted. Reason mentioned in my reply.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Hi

I think I mean there are certain things in life where it does not seem right for law to intrude such as freedom of religion or freedom in thought. But always to me conscience has a moral dimension so prompts, if that is the right word, us towards what is good. It is true as you indicate that some people are as we say morally bankrupt and have lost all sense of good and bad but for them law has no value either and guidance if for the weak.

It is true that law is of no benefit for those who are morally bankrupt, such laws are however useful for protecting others against such immoral people!

I don't think I spoke of justifiable amounts of freedom but rather that certain freedoms stand above others.

Freedom is a general term, and in that sense this debate really is about how much freedom can be justifiably limited. Of course freedom has subclasses. But that is besides the issue, the point is that both of us agree that unlimited freedom as in utopia is not achievable; and thus your point about freedom being a psychological need being a moot issue. It is a moot issue because both positions allow some degree of freedom, and just disagree on how much should be justifiably allowed.

Sharia may not be a problem for you but it would for me as I would want to be critical of Islam; I would want to be able to say for example that the Qu'ran is not in my opinion the word of God or speak of certain acts of the prophet as reprehensible. Sharai will not allow this will it?

As long as you manage to do this in a respectful way, you are allowed to voice your opinions and even question religion.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Well I consider it largely man made since if your look at its foundations: qu'ran, sunna, consensus and analogy one can see that...

I only mentioned the relevance of one's belief in that argument, to show how your argument was biased. In other words, your argument relied on your religious beliefs and was thus biased, and I pointed out how that makes your argument flawed. However, I did not do this, to invite you to debate the validity of Islam. As I have explained numerous times before, this forum is not made to debate whether or not Islaam is true, for that visit the comparative religion section of Islamicboard.com. This forum, since it is built as a database only allows debate with the intention of asking questions and seeking answers.

Of course for practical reasons, we allow you to make statements besides asking questions only. So that you can clarify why a view seems odd to you, and we can make our replies more direct and to the point. whereas allowing only actual questions would be an unnatural restriction which makes inquaries in complex questions far to difficult.
However, you will have to at least start your arguments from the Islamic point of view.

Any argument starting from the premise that Islaam is false, is not a genuine search for answers but is preaching different views in disguise. And this forum is by no means a platform for you to preach your views.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

One might argue that the 5 ideas here are in themselves good, meaning things one might want to create or preserve. However, I have two issues:

Im happy to address them

1. These are interrelated so one cannot preserve a religious system without the intellect to understand it or how say family values might be preserved without wealth in which the family might be sustained so I have some misgivings about the notion of priorities here or more particularly, fixed priorities.

a wonderful inquiry. You are right. most people, muslim or not, view these five matters as integral symbols of human existence. And likewise, you are correct that the matter of dispute is with regards to the categorization of which one would supersede the others rightfully and not unjustly.

As I said before, the essence of Islam and western philosophy are on flipped versions of the same aspirations.

I guess i will first address the direct point of contention you raised, and then thereafter, explain why we have the structured format that we have.

Firstly, In reality, there is no such thing as "without the intellect" on the planet EXCEPT in the rejection of God's Messsage. That means, in reality, everyone does have an intellect. It is just that the intellects vary from person to person and the influences of various factors affect this intellect.

Allow me to give you a real life example on this single point.

A Bedouin arab told an american convert the following

"how stupid the americans are" (he was talking about the muslims in america, not the non-muslims)

So the convert told him
"what are you talking about, you probably never seen a TV before"

the Bedouin said
"I may not know a lot, but I understand quite a bit. How is it, that these people can constantly perform the things that angers Allah and yet they expect His forgiveness"

What he said was one of the most logical things that the people of intellect can say, and the ironic part of it, is that it is more rational than all the rhetoric of the people who feign and hijack the banner of rationality.

secondly, the issue with wealth and family. This is UNDERSTOOD. Your contention was based on a universal approach of either wealth or family. That is not the essence of what we mean. What we mean is that ALL things should be weighed based on the benefits and the harms, and the most balanced system of approach to endeavor this task is the Islamic system of approach. We dont say that family goes over wealth on asbolute terms, rather the system of order is with regards to when both are in jeapordy, which one should be left. Of course I need wealth to sustain my family, but Im not going to sell my soul to the devil in order to make my family financially wealthy. Of course I need to provide wealth for my family, but Im not going to sell alcohol and destroy my relationsip with Allah and possibly my hereafter (which is deen) for the sake of my family.

So this is what we mean.

NOW, the reason why we have this approach, which is that our priority is as follows

1. deen (sanctity of our way of life which can be translated as religion)
2. Nafs (the self, and this mainly is the issue of life)
3. Aql (the intellectual acquisition)
4. ird (honor or chastity)
5. wealth (property, business, etc)

the essence of this categorization is not with regards to literally dumping each in its respective category as a universal practice. Rather the essence of this categorization is with regards to when two things are jeapordized and thus becomes an issue of either or, then the people of faith would opt to preserve what is more cherished in their view, and it is the order of these five above.

lets say for example, I have a business (falling under wealth). Throughout my relations in business, it was universally honest with no deception. Then a business opportunity arises where the ramifications of such a partnership or transaction would entail or undermine the trust and integrity I built my business upon. I, the Muslim, will not sacrifice my integrity (which falls under honor) in order to profit immensely from such a deal.

NOW, let us add another factor into the equation. Lets say that financial times are tough to the point of poverty and Iam succumbed to the school of thought of "I gotta do what I goot do for my family", then under that circumstance, in order to preserve the family, depending on the intensity of the business transaction, I may have to sacrifice my honor for the sake of the family.

Now, lets add another factor. Lets say that the exact nature of this business transaction entailed a blatant crime against Allah and my family is on the break of crumbling and I have no other option. Then in such a case, the family takes the back seat for no one is going to, or would want to risk their hereafter over their family

I hope the above was at least satisfactory for you to follow through and understand.

2. How will this work in practice, will such a system guarantee the preservation of let say a Christian heritage for example in the UK and never seek to change that or is this system discriminatory and only wishes to preserve Islam?

it has worked in practice.

It is both. The preservation it seeks is the religion of Allah and does not seek to protect the religion of other than Allah. HOWEVER, part of the religion of Allah is the obligation of not compelling others to extract them from their own faiths. In other words people can be who they can be UNDER the umbrella of the religion of Allah. In fact, the most tolerant system on the planet is the religion of ALlah. WHY. because Islam is the ONLY ruling system that ALLOWED the ruling systems of jewish and christian communities TO RULE WITH THEIR OWN LAWS WITHIN the Islamic caliphate, an attribute that has never been accepted under the auspice of secular countries ironically with them claiming the banner of absolute tolerance.

Anyways, the religion of Allah is neutral with other systems, it will protect them to a great extent. The only imposement that some of the jurists and scholars had brought forth is the issue of expansion and proselytizing and Im not well versed into the intricacies of the legal aspects to this issue, but that is as far as what i know.

3. Finally, one wonders where conscience comes into this list? For examples, someone may want to leave Islam or disagree with it. So it seems to me that preservation of personal freedom does not even figure in this list?

that is part of category three, the aql i.e. intellect. the issue of expression and speech enters into the aql. So expression is acceptable to a certain extent. If expression or speech leads to
1. people partaking in moral degradation
2. speech which spreads slander or lies (will be punished by the state)
3. speech which will lead people away from the sanctity of faith
4. speech which incites violence by which killing may occur

all of these things are logical realities which impugn the absolute free practition of speech. In other words, prevention of speech in these matters, its benefit outweighs greatly than the benefit of allowing people to say what they wish to say because the harms coming out of allowing people to say whatever they wish to say outweighs the harm of preventing them to say what they wish to say.
Everything is balanced in Islam, there is no extremity as all philosophical outlooks have adopted for themselves.

As I understand it most Muslim countries have signed the UN declaration of human rights but subordinate it in some schizophrenic manner to sharia because in many cases it negate the effect of the UNDH. There is the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights but it contains no equivalent of article 18 (on freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the former. In practice this has resulted, again and again of important rights being denied to people in Islamic countries on the grounds that it contravenes sharia.

there are cases where the US has chosen to deny the afirmation and signing of a UN right to its citizenry. INfact, forget america, EVERY country on the planet has several UN Rghts it has denied for its citezenry. to single-handedly pinpoint egypt or muslim countries out of the whole globe for doing it is extremely dishonest.

So the article does nothing more than restate the orthodox Islamic position but does nothing to deal with the impasse I have just described.

people have the right to freedom of religion, but MUSLIMS are denied the right of freedom of religion. And you know what, Muslims WANT that. I find it extremely hypocritical where americans and westerners raising their concept of "democracy" (the rule of the majority) to the level of Divine status to criticize Muslim countries where 98 percent of Muslims ALL unanimously concede that they do not want freedom of religion (specifically for muslims) while at the same time 80 or 90 percent of the american theatre denies the right for its citizenry the right to same sex marriage.
a fagot could argue and spot your for hypocrisy for criticizing us for what you yourselves do to your own people on two issues of grav "importance" according to the "free world" i.e. freedom for sexual persuasion and freedom of religion.

regards