I hope its all right with you all that I bring up religion's relationship to liberty on this forum. Didn't Islam originally spread by conquest (with no purported miraculous confirmation of its truth)? Wouldn't that mean that consistent Muslims would support such a method of spreading their faith? Doesn't the Islamic scripture approve of things like this?
If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty; why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
Because when it comes to politics, religion is just a font of politics.
I'm no expert on Islam, but from what I understand, it doesn't ban other religions or state that any islamic nation must be islamic-only. It tends to be political institutions that create and enforce those kinds of rules.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
Individualist:Didn't Islam originally spread by conquest (with no purported miraculous confirmation of its truth)?
I don't believe this is correct. Or at least, no more so than Christianity did.
Individualist:Wouldn't that mean that consistent Muslims would support such a method of spreading their faith?
I believe the Islamic faith revolves first around the Koran, and second around historical events (hadiths and such).
Individualist:If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty; why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
All religions are to some degree or another exclusive. But muslims, christians and jews lived among one another, rarely perfectly, but nonetheless they did live among one another for periods in the middle east. Even now, there is a lot more religious tolerance than there has been in the past.
What is mostly anti-western imperialism, is characterized as radical islam vs. christianity.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
The first dynasty ummayad was spread for monetary purposes and plunder. But is generally considered less religious than the next dynasty called Abassid which was very strict.
Neither dynasty was any good.
If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty;
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
If we had true liberty, then religious people would be able to live peacefully along side one another without incident. Religion should be a matter of choice among individuals without repercusions for differing religious beliefs or non-belief. If a religion is incompatible with liberty, and I'm sure there are probably some that are, then society would reject them assuming their commitment to liberty is sufficient.
We don't really have true liberty though at this moment. Religion has been a major political player in government intervention. Some of the most blood thirsty periods in history have been religiously motivated. Islam is just one of many religions that have used non-libertarian methods to expand their influence. Any religious movement that uses government, or more specifically force or coercion, is incompatible with liberty as long as they follow that policy.
The question you ask is whether Islam is consistent with liberty. That of course covers a ton of people and several different variations of beliefs. Islam doesn't have a Pope or other othodox hierarchy, and leaves a lot to intepretation by scholars. That means the religion changes by location and by time period.
Originally, Islam was taught to free the masses from the oppression of the priciple powers of that time. As the movement grew it transformed beyond a liberating movement to a movement where military conquest was justified (right or wrong). It was that period and the decisions made at that time that has cause great confusion in the interpretation of what is or is not just.
There was much more religious freedom under Islam than the Roman Catholic Church, so I don't quite understand the comment. Islam was much more tolerant of religious and scientific freedom.
As for military conquest of religions, this is not at all unique. Islam was at war in the time of Muhammad. Judaism was at war in the time of Moses; the Ark of the Covenant was said to be a major weapon. Christianity would eventually turn to conquest once under Roman influence, and proved no less brutal than any other relgion before it. The wars between Catholics and Protestants tore Europe apart several times over. Is all of this consistent with liberty? No, it's not. As western governments became more secular there has been more tolerance to freedom of religion than under Catholic or Protestant rule. A lot of blood was shed to reach the current state we experience now where even the most radical religions may practice their faith, but we are still not completely free from religious influence in government intervention.
Individualist: Doesn't the Islamic scripture approve of things like this?
Individualist:why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Snowflake:Because the governments aren't about religion, they are about power. The use religion like propaganda.
There is a lot of truth in this. After an extended period of time, national and political norms become a form of religion. They become accepted as the correct and social way of doing things, whether their initial premises pass muster matter not, because they are based on repetition and belief, not reason.
Caveat, that's not to slight religion as being anti-reason, but it is one thing to believe in something divine, and another thing to believe in something that is man made and makes no claim to being divine. If we're going to deify anyone, it makes more sense (to me at least) to deify a god, not a man or political movement.
Religion is only an expression of ignorance, and mostly reflects the ignorance and barbarism of the society whete it is practiced. The arabs were basically barbarians that unlike other people in the region, had no material wealth, so Islam was used as an excuse to plunder the riches of civilization. To this day, Islam remains one of the worst kinds of organized religions, and most cults considered by the mainstream to be dangerous have a hard time keeping up.
Although he is not a libertarian, I recommend Pat Condell on the subject, since he often says where Islam is violating his freedoms, and the freedoms of others.
Individualist: I hope its all right with you all that I bring up religion's relationship to liberty on this forum. Didn't Islam originally spread by conquest (with no purported miraculous confirmation of its truth)? Wouldn't that mean that consistent Muslims would support such a method of spreading their faith? Doesn't the Islamic scripture approve of things like this? If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty; why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
Islamic nations, historically speaking, have been the most peaceful, innovative, and prosperous nations, until relatively recently. The so-called 'radical Muslims' are nothing more than radical socialists who seek complete control over every dimension of life. But this is not only a Muslim phenomena; how free are we in the United States, or in the UK, or in Communist China?
The tenants of Islam are the same tenants seen in Judeo-Christianity; both have some elements of brutality (breaking sabbath, for example, means death), but the crux of all monotheistic faiths (I include Buddhism in this category) is peace and devotion. The Islamic scripture is 99.9% about peace, love, and brotherhood. Furthermore, who would deny that Christians forcefully spread their faith throughout the entire world?
The problem arises when people confuse the actual teachings of religion with the actions of overly ambitious men, who quote from such texts for political expedience and power. Evil people will quote from religious texts, political philosophers, poets, economists, whatever, in order to achieve their goal (power). Blaming religion for evil is like blaming guns for murder.
I'm no expert pf the Koran nor Islam. Do they require that everyone be or become Muslim? Perhaps a better question would, how is Islam inconsistent with libertarianism?
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Daniel: I'm no expert pf the Koran nor Islam. Do they require that everyone be or become Muslim? Perhaps a better question would, how is Islam inconsistent with libertarianism?
Islam just means people of peace who submit themselves to Allah (GOD, the same GOD of the Jews and Christians). This does not mean that you submit yourself to men who claim some kind of divine authority (in fact the opposite is true), nor does it mean that you should kill non believers (they are to be judged in the end of days). Furthermore, Islam includes Jews and Christians; the organization and division of sects is more political than religious. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, ect, are all prophets of Islam.
Jews, for example, are allowed to pray in Mosques, and Muslims can pray in Jewish Temples (or at least they could). Now, there is an intellectual debate amongst Muslims and Christians over Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus did die for the sins of man, but that he was a man himself, and not GOD. While Christians believe that Jesus was GOD on earth. But the debate is an intellectual one, meaning the scholars don't kill each other.
I don't mean to underplay the differences between Christianity and Islam, there are real differences. Christians believe that the only way you reach heaven is through faith and faith alone, while Muslims believe you get to heaven through faith and good deeds. The notion of hell is different as well. Muslims don't believe that souls are trapped in hell forever (though some are). There are more similarities though, the main connection is denouncing Satan.
One of the things you'll see most is that they think that they (OMG! 5 words that look roughly the same in a row!) can defend their religion with violence against people who dare criticize it, this is one of the biggest dangers in Sweden at the moment, but as Islam gets more popular, we might see them forcing their culture and religion on everyone else, it has already started happening a bit, and the Swedish public service television told the Swedish kids about Ramadan (and even celebrated it) during Bolibompa (the most popular children's show in Sweden), even though there are very few muslims in Sweden at the moment.
Esuric: Daniel: I'm no expert pf the Koran nor Islam. Do they require that everyone be or become Muslim? Perhaps a better question would, how is Islam inconsistent with libertarianism? Islam just means people of peace who submit themselves to Allah (GOD, the same GOD of the Jews and Christians). This does not mean that you submit yourself to men who claim some kind of divine authority (in fact the opposite is true), nor does it mean that you should kill non believers (they are to be judged in the end of days). Furthermore, Islam includes Jews and Christians; the organization and division of sects is more political than religious. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, ect, are all prophets of Islam. Jews, for example, are allowed to pray in Mosques, and Muslims can pray in Jewish Temples (or at least they could). Now, there is an intellectual debate amongst Muslims and Christians over Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus did die for the sins of man, but that he was a man himself, and not GOD. While Christians believe that Jesus was GOD on earth. But the debate is an intellectual one, meaning the scholars don't kill each other.
There is tolerance of other religions in Islam, but there is no tolerance for a Muslim who converts to Christianity, Judaism or other religion. Now how they deal with this differs in different countries.
I'd also say that American's exposure of Muslims is very limited to some of the most extreme schools (compounded by the media, which reports the most sensational aspects). I might even go as far to say that American Muslims may have more extreme views than their Middle Eastern counterparts, but are limited in acting out these beliefs due to the secular government. That's not to say that all American Muslims are this way, it's just a generalization based on the schools that have more prominence in the country. But hey, this isn't a new thing to America. Puritans came to America and enacted some of the most barbaristic policies that even made some of the more extreme churches in England indignant.
Oh, and another major difference is that Christians don't believe you have a right to kill ever, no matter what. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that you have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property. This is one reason why people tend to see Christianity as the more peaceful religion. Early Christians chose torture over denying their faith.
K.C. Farmer:I'd also say that American's exposure of Muslims is very limited to some of the most extreme schools (compounded by the media, which reports the most sensational aspects). I might even go as far to say that American Muslims may have more extreme views than their Middle Eastern counterparts, but are limited in acting out these beliefs due to the secular government. That's not to say that all American Muslims are this way, it's just a generalization based on the schools that have more prominence in the country. But hey, this isn't a new thing to America. Puritans came to America and enacted some of the most barbaristic policies that even made some of the more extreme churches in England indignant.
That's like the media blaming 'conservatism' for atrocities. The left tries to link conservatism to lunatics, the same way the right tries to link Islam to lunatics. People do crazy shit, for many different reasons. The Muslims in the middle east tend to be more violent, but can you really blame them? Unfortunately, the atrocities against Muslims in the middle east has allowed for some extremely brutal dictators to emerge (the same way Hitler emerged in Germany after the abuse it took after WW1). A Muslim in Montenegro, for example, acts differently than a Muslim in the Gaza Strip. There is no connection between Islam (the faith) and aggression or insanity.
The first suicide bombers were Jewish, I wonder why? People will only accept oppression for so long.
Esuric:Oh, and another major difference is that Christians don't believe you have a right to kill ever, no matter what. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that you have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property. This is one reason why people tend to see Christianity as the more peaceful religion. Early Christians chose torture over denying their faith.
Oh, but it didn't take long before Christians stopped turning the other cheek and went for the throat. This change occurred around the time Constantine converted and forced the religion to have one standard - a standard that also merged the ancient Roman religion with Christianity. It's at this moment where Christianity became the State, and went with the policy of assimilation, expulsion or extermination (as most states often do). Christians turned against Christians as the Heresy Hunters were sent out to determine which Christians or ideas were good and which were evil. They even hunted down philosophers, mathematicians and early scientists as heretics. The decisions of some of these early orthodox church fathers simply defy reason. One example is that one claimed because there are four directions on the compass and four winds, there are four and only four true gospels.
Arvin: One of the things you'll see most is that they think that they (OMG! 5 words that look roughly the same in a row!) can defend their religion with violence against people who dare criticize it,
One of the things you'll see most is that they think that they (OMG! 5 words that look roughly the same in a row!) can defend their religion with violence against people who dare criticize it,
Is that what it says in the Koran?
I think the following lecture given by Sean Gabb of the libertarian alliance may be most instructive to the ongoing debate:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4288936354899104985&ei=fpf0SvWcA4rV-Qab1aGgDA&q=sean+gabb+islam&hl=en&client=firefox-a#
K.C. Farmer: There is tolerance of other religions in Islam, but there is no tolerance for a Muslim who converts to Christianity, Judaism or other religion. Now how they deal with this differs in different countries.
There is supposed to be tolerance for anyone who converts out of Islam as you'll see
[18:29] Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.......-
[5:54] O you who believe, if you revert from your religion, then GOD will substitute in your place people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be kind with the believers, stern with the disbelievers, and will strive in the cause of GOD without fear of any blame. Such is GOD's blessing; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. GOD is Bounteous, Omniscient.
but all "muslim" governments and tribesmen that get involved in stoning people to death and other nonsense don't even bother practicing what is preached in Quran.
The Quran itself states They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD. [9:31]
Most all of the confusion and "contradictions" take place between what is in the Quran or what is in hadith. That is why some reject Hadith- which is seen to be human words and easy to tamper with and not "God's word" as Quran is. Any "contradictions" found in the Quran usually comes from a very very poor understanding of the text and the context in which its written.
I recommend this site www.submission.org- it takes to task many of the most hard hitting questions about Islam and why some people can't wrap their minds around how it could possibly be considered peaceful when there are so many "Muslims" out there that seem bloodthirsty. Quran also places a heavy emphasis on God disliking hypocrites- those who call themselves Muslim but engage in evil- they are seen as some of the worst of people- and there's plenty of them on this earth.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap