Pages: [1] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Islam and libertarianism (Read 3652 times)
|
|
onenat
|
I'm an agnostic, but I was wondering whether a Muslim could be a true libertarian.
For example, it states in the Koran that Muslims should not consume alcohol. Does this mean that a Muslim cannot advocate any libertarian belief as this would naturally include the liberty to drink alcohol? Couldn't this rationale be applied to prostitution, narcotics and other things frowned upon in the Koran?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Palindrome
|
The same rationale could then be applied to Christians, Buddhists and any other religious entity.
The bottom line on Libertarianism: I can believe whatever I want as long as it doesn't involve force or fraud against you.
In other words, a Muslim could be a libertarian if he or she believed it was wrong to eat pork, but did not try to kill or otherwise punish/restrain/threaten those who think eating pork it just fine.
There is room for everyone inside the boundaries of Libertarianism (at least everyone who is willing to practice NO FORCE and NO FRAUD).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Femur
|
I'm an agnostic, but I was wondering whether a Muslim could be a true libertarian.
For example, it states in the Koran that Muslims should not consume alcohol. Does this mean that a Muslim cannot advocate any libertarian belief as this would naturally include the liberty to drink alcohol? Couldn't this rationale be applied to prostitution, narcotics and other things frowned upon in the Koran?
I suppose a muslim could be as much a libertarian as a christian, or a jew, or any other religious zealot who derives their ethics and morality from superstition, authority, and faith instead of reason and logic. The real question becomes: what's a muslim? what's a christian? Really, it's all interpretation. Someone who proclaims they are a christian is easily refuted by someone else, with different beliefs and ideas for implementing those beliefs, who also claims that they are a christian. Which one is the true christian? Who cares... There are many passages in the bible that basically suggest it is ok to tromp on your neighbors if you don't like how they are leading their life. No different from the Koran, I'm sure. But, as always, judge the individual. He or she may have an enlightened view of religion, and truly intends to protect individual liberties, even if they think their neighbor is going to hell for their actions. It's tough to trust an irrationalist, but seeing as how there are so many of them--even in the FSP movement--you've got to make some concessions and hope that more people will use logic and reason to derive their ethics and morality. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
onenat
|
The same rationale could then be applied to Christians, Buddhists and any other religious entity.
The bottom line on Libertarianism: I can believe whatever I want as long as it doesn't involve force or fraud against you.
In other words, a Muslim could be a libertarian if he or she believed it was wrong to eat pork, but did not try to kill or otherwise punish/restrain/threaten those who think eating pork it just fine.
There is room for everyone inside the boundaries of Libertarianism (at least everyone who is willing to practice NO FORCE and NO FRAUD).
I largely agree with what you say. However, aren't some religous beliefs and libertarianism contradictory? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
The vast majority of the rules that permitted "tromping on" your neighbor were specifically referring to the israeli nation's rules. If you were a foreigner you were not bound by those rules. The religious rules primarily limit you to expelling a person from the church, and don't permit the use of force.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-Federalist
|
Maestro;
I read that Israel doesn't allow its 3 Million Palestinian citizens to vote. I also read that they took over mosques that used to be jewish temples and won't let the muslims worship there any more. Is the Israeli Gov't "officially" religious? Is any of this true?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 04, 2003, 07:17:45 pm by Anti-Federalist »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
Maestro;
I read that Israel doesn't allow its 3 Million Palestinian citizens to vote. I also read that they took over mosques that used to be jewish temples and won't let the muslims worship there any more. Is the Israeli Gov't "officially" religious? Is any of this true?
Good question. I will look into it. in the meantime, are these 3 million Palestinians citizens or refugees? After all, we don't allow illegal aliens to vote either. If the mosques used to be Jewish temples, why _not_ take them back for the jews? I think the Israeli Government straddles the line, as a kind of theocratic representative democracy. ----- OK I have examined the US state department background on Israel: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm- Ethnic groups: Jewish 5.2 million; non-Jewish 1.2 million. Religions: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Druze. - Of the non-Jewish population, about 80% are Muslims, 10% are Christian, and about 10% are Druze. First of all it doesn't look like 3 million palestinians even exist. Looks more likely that it's just over 1 million. - Government Type: Parliamentary democracy. - Suffrage: Universal at 18 This _implies_ that every citizen gets a vote regardless of association -The largest bloc in the opposition is left-wing Meretz, with 10 members. The Arab parties also serve in the opposition. This just about clinches it. At least _some_ palestinians are permitted suffrage. I think we can conclude that Israel is not a theocracy, and that native-born palestinians have suffrage. As to the temples, I can't find that info here, but based on what you said, I don't see the problem with what they did. That was actually rather enlightening, as I hadn't previously looked into this. It is possible that this is untrue propaganda, but it seems rather unlikely that the numeric facts are false. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
To be clear, I was referring to the Old Testament Israeli nation, not the modern one, when I was talking about the religious rules in the previous statement. But I found the modern info to be pretty cool anyway  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-Federalist
|
I keep hearing that the U.S. should support Israel because it's the only capitalistic democracy in the Middle East. I was wondering if this is just more U.S. propaganda (like "Saudi Arabia is our friend") and what it is the Palestinians are complaining about...
I have to tell you in advance, I'm for letting anyone who wants their own country having it. There's nothing natural about forcing different cultures, races, etc. into one country just because one tribe conquered another five-hundred years ago. I have little sympathy for the British who claim eternal sovereignty over Scotland or Northern Ireland. If those populations want to seceed and form their own countries, they should be allowed to do so.
I just did some reading and it appears that Israel "annexed" the Palestinian areas (West Bank and Gaza Strip) for "strategic" reasons, and then denied that the Palestinians living there (approximately 3 million) had ANY rights under Israeli law to vote or control their own destiny. Apparently part of the continuing "peace accord" was giving Palestinians some autonomy over that land, but it continues to erupt in conflict (Arafat being their elected leader). I have ordered the book, A HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST, by Peter Mansfield, to read up on all of the conflicts, including the original granting of the territory to Israel; Iraq and Kuwait's territorial claims, etc. Hopefully this will clear up some of the mysteries for me...
Regarding the Jewish temple problem: Again, if one's viewpoint is "might makes right," then the only question is whether Israel can militarily hold the areas and do whatever it wants or whether the Palestinians can forcibly take it back. My preference is for a more legalistic view, that there are no legitimate claims on the religious shrines (which were previously Synagogues then turned into Mosques) and that the gov't should make them into non-denominational centers of worship so that both sides can practice their religion (or at least be free to visit their holy sites without the other's religion being exclusively practiced there).
As an analogy, I think the Mormons would be rightfully upset if some Native Americans "took back" their Tabernacle and passed laws that only the Native American gods could be worshiped there, on a "we were here first" basis... Religion is such a powerful meme; that type of action is only going to lead to fighting. I guess I have very little sympathy for those who would deny others certain rights that they hold themselves, just because they have the military strength to do so...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
exitus
|
I'm an agnostic, but I was wondering whether a Muslim could be a true libertarian.
Go to this thread, Muslims in the Free State in which this topic was discussed. It is located under the General Libertarian topic, come to think of it , it would probably be better- placed here under religion. There are many links within those pages to other sites that deal with this topic, including a few to liberty-promoting Muslim sites, one of which is on the first topic post. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 05, 2003, 12:03:39 pm by Éxitos a.k.a. exitus »
|
Logged
|
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue†-- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
OK I have lost my message several times now so I'm gonna keep it short and discuss the issues with another message later.
Gaza has 1 million, West bank has 2 million, and both are under Israeli control (with actual occupation of less than 200,000) This is per the Israel-palestine peace accord, whose details I don't know right now.
So you were right about the numbers. The state department just didn't write a background on these two sub-nations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth
|
Go to this thread, Muslims in the Free State in which this topic was discussed. It is located under the General Libertarian topic, come to think of it , it would probably be better- placed here under religion. I moved it into this forum. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sharper
FSP Participant
 Offline
Posts: 7
Omnis Pro Nullem Seriousis
|
I just did some reading and it appears that Israel "annexed" the Palestinian areas (West Bank and Gaza Strip) for "strategic" reasons, and then denied that the Palestinians living there (approximately 3 million) had ANY rights under Israeli law to vote or control their own destiny.
I think it's worth noting that they "annexed" it when the land was used (a second time) to attack them as part of a war they didn't start (but finished well), in order to prevent further attacks from a location overlooking their main population center. As an analogy, I think the Mormons would be rightfully upset if some Native Americans "took back" their Tabernacle and passed laws that only the Native American gods could be worshiped there, on a "we were here first" basis... Religion is such a powerful meme; that type of action is only going to lead to fighting. I guess I have very little sympathy for those who would deny others certain rights that they hold themselves, just because they have the military strength to do so...
I see your point, but it doesn't completely apply. 1. The most common religion among "Native Americans" in Utah is LDS, so many of them already worship there. (Being 1/16 Cherokee and having lived there for a few years, I'm pretty familiar with the area and some of the local medicine men. There isn't a lot of resentment there against the Mormons. They were the Indians friends long before Federal Government agents stopped fighting the Indians.) 2. The Mormons didn't build it on top of the "Native American" 's holiest land, in contrast to the Muslims. Also, the origin of the most recent conflict is that the Arabs in the area sided with Hitler in WWII and after he lost the war the allies (led by Great Britain, who had "liberated" the area and been assigned to govern it) decided to create a homeland for the Jews where virtually no one lived already. To speak of Palestinians as a nation is to speak of something that does not and never has existed. There never has been a nation of Palestine. They were essentially a tribe that neighboring Arab countries kicked out because THEY didn't like them and thought they'd cause trouble for Israel. Its turned out to be a spectacular success as a strategy. The whole Jewish/Muslim thing is more of a family disagreement dating from Abraham's kids going their seperate ways. They've traded blows and land for far longer then anyone in the US and will probably continue to do so for a long time to come. I must admit that I don't have much sympathy for those who's political strategy involves killing as many innocent people on the other side as possible in order to make a point. They've been offered peace and their own nation to get them out of the hair of Israel as recently as three years ago and rejected the offer. They don't want peace, they want murder. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
.... They've been offered peace and their own nation to get them out of the hair of Israel as recently as three years ago and rejected the offer. They don't want peace, they want murder.
Of course. If they agree to have their own country, Israel can view their attacks as acts of War and invade them and put a stop to the attacks forever. They prefer to be put-upon refugees. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StevenN
|
By my understanding, all the major religions - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism - have no explicit commands for a type government - except for Islam. I believe that "Sharia" is the doctine in the Koran that has explicit guidelines for government.
But since I don't know much about this, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -- Jebediah Springfield
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
