A glance at Saudi government-approved fatwas

[Sahar]

Just our beliefs which the country doesn't enforce on us, but the rest will not because the government makes sure that we follow. In other, shorter words, non of Islamic teachings are laws except if they are clarified to be as such...

How so?! What you say is based on what exactly? Prohibition of riba is a law or not? Prohibition of drinking alcohol is a law or not?
Scholars of Islam derive laws from every ayah and authentic hadith that imply any relevance to the issue of concern. Laws in this context mean on the level of the state in the different fields of life. For example, from a hadith that narrates a story or an incident, laws can be driven very well.

 

[Sahar]

Do you really think for even a second that Muslim's ideals are better than everyone else's?

And why do you think that yours are better than Muslims'?
So I have to submit to your political ideologies, economic, legal and educational systems and when I want my views to be represented, it becomes despotic and evil? :sarcastic
Don't I as an individual have the right to see my views represented? What if more and more people share the same views with me? Can't our views be represented? Shouldn't the public will be represented?
The secular political system doesn't represent my view and moreover in many aspects, it goes against my views. Would it be okay if I expected a majority who are very happy with the secular system to follow my political ideologies? In any country, the acceptance of a certain ruling system won't be 100%, there will be a minority who will submit to the will of the majority, naturally.
As for limitations on the will of the majority, yes there can be limitations...but at the very beginning these limitations shall derive its legitimacy from the public will which will take us back to the majority vs the minority issue. If you believe in certain limitations and I believe in other different limits, whose beliefs and views shall be implemented? Yours or mine?
Who shall say that these limitations are okay or not, aren't they the people?

As for alcohol and drugs, yes if necessary to limit a little the so called personal freedom to drink and use drugs, to prevent harm on the scale of the society, then let it be. If it's tyrannical, so be it. If a drug was proved to cause harm to others on a large scale, and its harms by far outweigh its benefits (if there were any) and banning it will definitely be for the best of interest of the society; then ban it.
As for the alcohol ban in the US, yes I am very familiar with it. What else do we expect from people who sleep and wake up on alcohol and other who are dependent on it? On the contrary, Islam indeed could eliminate alcohol from the lives of Muslims (or most Muslims) from 1400 years ago until now even if there were no laws that ban it, even if drinking alcohol was a norm of the surrounding society. Drinking alcohol and drunkenness were very common in the pre-Islamic society, actually Arabs at that time were used to start their poems with talking about alcohol. But when Islam came, it didn't prohibit it between day and night, rather it followed a gradual approach.
I wrote this before:

Islam didn't prohibit alcohol at the beginning because the circumstances were not appropriate then, in other words if the Qur'an prohibited it, it would fail and no one would listen but the prohibition was prescribed after sixteen years from the start of revelation. Islam didn't prohibit alcohol except after creating a society of believers and sowing the seeds of Iman (faith) and conviction inside them so when the Qur'an prohibited something like alcohol, they were prepared for such prescription that's why their response was obeying; it was easy after they were strong in their faith.
It would be craziness to prohibit something like alcohol which was so deeply rooted in and infiltrated the pre-Islamic society (just like it's now in many non-Muslim societies) all of a sudden. Actually it wouldn't work and your example (the US prohibition of alcohol) is my evidence. And here it lies Allah's wisdom. Islam could eradicate alcohol in its followers' lives (until today) with their approval but your governments couldn't. Islam was successful because Islam considered the circumstances and the nature of human beings.

Thus, before a government that establishes the Islamic Sharia, you should establish a society of believers first who will be ready to submit to the the Shari'a of Allah. In other words the Islamic government's legitimacy comes from the will of the people. Therefore when the elected Islamic government implements alcohol prohibition, this means that the people are ready to submit and the circumstances are perfectly fitting.
But to people in a non Muslim society who wake up and sleep on Alcohol, you can't tell them all of a sudden "No alcohol anymore", they would go crazy as you just showed...

Btw, I heard that there are many "idiots" in the US. There are around 15 million people who are alcohol abuser there.

I don't mind anyone believing that my views, Islamic Shari'a are tyrannical...etc. Just like I do view that secularism and its systems spread immorality, evil and corruption in a lot of cases. I must say that there should be legal channels for the political opposition and for defending your case if you faced injustice.
As I said, freedom of religion should be granted, non Muslims can form their own courts to settle disputes among them in certain areas. Some laws won't be applied on non Muslims and I am sure some others will be applied on them but honestly I don't know what is the limit and to what degree.
And the Muslim who lives in any secular country naturally submits to the legal system there and he will have to follow the rules of the different systems there.

 

[Starsoul]

Of course, and thats the way it is. I just don't agree that its a justification for Muslim countries to restrict the rights of non-muslims (I know you're not saying that). Also, note that some of the things mentioned here are also restrictions on muslims themselves. There must a line drawn where the government should interfere and where it shouldn't.

In other words, if we were discussing the conditions of Saudi Arabia for example, some of the restrictions there are completely understandable considering that secular liberal countries still put restrictions on people. However, since we were talking about the way it is supposed to be, why still say that we will restrict people? Because secular countries do? That doesn't make any sense, unless you view both as right, and in that case that person shouldn't complain about these restrictions in secular countries otherwise they are contradicting themselves.

You have a slight habit of taking inferences in a direction where they are not in the least pointed.:bonk:

Abibi summed it up well for you i hope.

And for your question, To DATE, Muslim countries OFFER more leverage, freedom and pleasure to visiting, or occupational non-muslims than ANY other secular state offers to the muslims. Looks like you have yet to live in a muslim country.

 

[Meow Mix]

Do secular people condemn that?

Yes, less than half of Americans supported it (the war in Iraq/Afghanistan). Those that did support it were lied to by our leaders.

Do they have any idea what it is like to be in an un-wanted war with unwanted guests?

Yep, many of us still don't support it. "Support our troops but not the war" is the slogan. I just wish for the safe return of our young men and women who were lied to by our leaders into going to war.

Are you suggesting that a State operating without religion is NOT capable of killing the resistors to further its agenda?

I wouldn't suggest this because without religion someone will do crappy stuff for political ideology, too. I don't think Islam would solve it either, though. What would help facilitate peace would be better education and opportunities for everyone -- regardless of what religion is dominant in the country, so this applies to secular and nonsecular governments alike.

As long as the people are free, they will be happy. But to be free they have to be educated, and they have to be able to have basic amenities like nutritious food and potable water.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well can we say the same about the secular govts. about protecting the rights and practices of the muslims? The whole idea of living in a Muslim country revolves around the freedom that comes with being a muslim. For instance, in ANY secular State in Europe or in the US, the Masjids (Mosques) are not allowed to build a round 'gumbad'(minaret) at their top because ,well its not allowed. Muslims recognize a masjid from afar because of its top structure. And You know much debate there is for building a mosque in a metropolitan city anyway, no ready access to which hampers our religious duties.

I'd imagine they aren't able to build them because of building codes that apply to everyone -- not just targeted at Muslims. I don't see any roundish structures at all in any cities, come to think of it. I'd have to look into the matter first but I strongly suspect it's just standard building codes, not a deliberate move against Muslims. The cities want the buildings to be similar to one another because otherwise it looks hodgepodge and thrown together, just makes the city look displeasing to the eye if all the buildings are different.

Secondly, Secular states do not even allow the call of prayer to be made which is an utmost requirement of our prayer 5 times a day, but its prohibited. One can understand the implication but why would a secular person feel that his interests that go against Islam, in an Islamic country should be protected inspite of the fact that secular states do not protect several community and various personal rights of the Muslim minority.

What do you mean secular states don't allow the call of prayer? Muslims can pray 5 times a day, I don't understand. Do you mean they can't blare it over a loudspeaker and disrupt the day's business for everyone else? I don't see what's unreasonable about Muslims praying 5 times a day without a loudspeaker blasting in everyone else's ear for several minutes (I have no idea how long each prayer lasts), but Christian churches can't blare things over loudspeakers either.

So, when a secular state allows a muslim to perform Azaan in their country, we'll see if your rights can be protected too in a religious state. But I doubt you'd find any pork or whiskey in an Islamic country, our religion forbids our involvement in these things at any level from production to packaging or import. But you wont be bored a day without these things if you were to visit a muslim country anyway, there's plenty to choose from.

And as for minority rights, all of them are protected from their worship to their beliefs. But in any such case where minorities cannot survive without pork and alcohol, i'm sure they'd move to the country of their liking, there's plenty to choose from. So far, the minorities in our country (as much as i know) are pretty ok without readily available alcohol. Its available but not easily.

Well first I want to understand why minarets and "call to prayer" aren't allowed, there may be good reasons for it. Nothing fundamentally prevents Muslims from practicing their faith though, I suspect it's just building codes and noise codes. Can someone decide to get on a megaphone 5 times a day and blast sound in a Muslim neighborhood?

 

[Meow Mix]

Or the banning of Burqas and possible banning of the Hijab or banks that do not use interest. Muslim freedom faces many restrictions as well as implicit restrictions such as wearing Islamic affiliated clothing when applying for a job.

I disagree with the banning of burqas, hijabs, or interest free banks. I'm against that crap with you guys. It's a terrible example of religious freedom, and France should be ashamed.

I can maybe understand why a burqa's faceveil shouldn't be worn in an airport or other security-related areas like banks or when getting a driver's license photo taken, but banning it in general is just silly and tyrannical.

 

[Meow Mix]

One, I am talking about wearing a burqa on public property such as a park. Two, it would be easy enough to require a quick face recognition in those areas where security is a concern such as an airport. But really, a generalize ban really does betray their interests.

I suppose you will also be claiming that minarets are housing ICBMs and the Adhan is a call for violence?

Are those the reasons given by some places?

I'm not even sure that's the case in America, I'd have to look. Sounds like Europe does have a crappy track record with religious rights for Muslims though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd imagine they aren't able to build them because of building codes that apply to everyone -- not just targeted at Muslims. I don't see any roundish structures at all in any cities, come to think of it. I'd have to look into the matter first but I strongly suspect it's just standard building codes, not a deliberate move against Muslims. The cities want the buildings to be similar to one another because otherwise it looks hodgepodge and thrown together, just makes the city look displeasing to the eye if all the buildings are different.

This approach to building codes & zoning laws does create potential for mischief. I've seen it work injustice against not just Muslims, but even Xtians too.
Still, mosques get built here & survive without problem. It ain't a perfect system, but all the difficulties (eg, pedestrian traffic, building/land area ratio) are
resolvable.

 

[Meow Mix]

Badran: But it's much more practical to implement changes in a first world country that touts individual values and progressive liberalism than many of the Muslim countries of the world. It comes down to how I expect America to treat Americans and how I expect Saudi Arabia to treat Saudis.

I agree that all parties involved should be changing.

I looked it up: minarets are allowed in America as far as I can tell, or at least it hasn't been banned.

Burqas aren't banned in America either.

I still haven't found whether or not adhan (spelling?) is legal in America but I did find a legal website, IslamicFinder: Accurate Prayer Times, Athan (Azan), Mosques (Masjids), Islamic Center, Muslim Owned Businesses, Hijri Calendar, Islamic Directory worldwide., that can inform Muslims online or through their cell phones which direction to pray to from which cities and at what exact time.

Honestly I can sort of understand if by adhan you mean blaring over a loudspeaker why that wouldn't be allowed... that's not allowed for anyone to do. I couldn't go out on the street corner with a megaphone and blare stuff, nor can churches or synogogues blare stuff over a loudspeaker either (and especially not 5 times a day).

Of course everyone is able to listen and join in on songs with their religious leaders wherever they are (as long as they're not, say, blocking a street or sidewalk) and sing as loud as they want there, but they can't blare it over a loudspeaker. I don't find that unreasonable... do you?

 

[Meow Mix]

not4me: It's all a reply to darkendless I believe. I'm not sure how to format quotes to include names

You type (quote="Name") (/quote)

Except instead of soft brackets () you use hard brackets []

 

[Meow Mix]

A non-Muslim or a poor Muslim, defined as one without faith, does not have his or her rights stripped away.

Yes they would, though. I understand if the state in general focuses on cows and sheep -- that doesn't strip anyone's rights away. But if I can't, say, start up a pork business to cater to non-Muslims who want to try it or who miss it, or even regularly eat it why shouldn't I be able to use my land that I own for that purpose? This is different from the examples you gave and I'll explain why below.

For example, there is a French dish that is made by cooking of a force fed Goose. This practice is banned in multiple countries, is this a violation of freedom?

This issue is difficult because many laws are to protect animals from unneeded cruelty. For instance if the goose is stuffed postmortem it wouldn't be banned. I don't think it's a violation of freedom so much as it is a condemnation of unnecessary animal cruelty. There is no parallel here between eating pork.

Or before the State of Utah gained statehood, the U.S required that polygamy, something practiced among some of its Mormons, to be banned. Again, is this a restriction on their freedom? It is simply a law of the land.

I sort of agree that it's a restriction on freedom, and don't necessarily agree with it. However if polygamy were legal then polyandry would have to be legal too.

 

[Starsoul]

I'd imagine they aren't able to build them because of building codes that apply to everyone -- not just targeted at Muslims. I don't see any roundish structures at all in any cities, come to think of it. I'd have to look into the matter first but I strongly suspect it's just standard building codes, not a deliberate move against Muslims. The cities want the buildings to be similar to one another because otherwise it looks hodgepodge and thrown together, just makes the city look displeasing to the eye if all the buildings are different.

Well the round top is a pretty stable structure and since such a design is only used for a Masjid (mosque) it looks pretty neat and spottable from a distance in a way that a muslim does not even have to ask around which one is the masjid out of all these houses?(in case he's a passerby) And to us its not displeasing, not at all! Its pretty sightly among the block headed buildings, since one area usually only has one masjid( like one in a specific colony)

What do you mean secular states don't allow the call of prayer? Muslims can pray 5 times a day, I don't understand. Do you mean they can't blare it over a loudspeaker and disrupt the day's business for everyone else? I don't see what's unreasonable about Muslims praying 5 times a day without a loudspeaker blasting in everyone else's ear for several minutes (I have no idea how long each prayer lasts), but Christian churches can't blare things over loudspeakers either.

Each prayer is very small , like lasting between 4- 8 minutes, the mandatory prayer and the supplemental voluntary prayers lasting upto one's convenience and will. Yes the CALL for prayer (Aazan) is what is actually the call for prayer so its required to be heard atleast uptill some distance. And well its music to our years even though we get to listen to it everyday in a muslim country, and prayers are not so much fun without the Call of Aazan in non-muslim countries, its kind of not fun. (like dancing without music?)

Well first I want to understand why minarets and "call to prayer" aren't allowed, there may be good reasons for it. Nothing fundamentally prevents Muslims from practicing their faith though, I suspect it's just building codes and noise codes. Can someone decide to get on a megaphone 5 times a day and blast sound in a Muslim neighborhood?

Yes, people play loud music all the time which is noise to the ears of many, but can other people complain? Why can people blast music and not prayers In a non -muslim country? In a muslim country though all kinds of painful death metal tunes and trance can be heard on the speakers, why can't muslim give Aazan on the medium loud volume, not too loud, that isn't allowed either in a muslim community.

 

[Meow Mix]

Don't I as an individual have the right to see my views represented? What if more and more people share the same views with me? Can't our views be represented? Shouldn't the public will be represented?

You do have the right to see your views represented, you just don't have the right to force them on anyone.

The secular political system doesn't represent my view and moreover in many aspects, it goes against my views.

America wouldn't force you to eat pork, drink, bank with usury, visit a mixed pool or anything else we've talked about... how does it go against your views? You wouldn't have to do anything that you object to, that's what I don't understand. I read the posts you made about secular societies but nothing about them entailed forcing Muslims to do things they didn't want or disallowing them from doing things that they want.

As for limitations on the will of the majority, yes there can be limitations...but at the very beginning these limitations shall derive its legitimacy from the public will which will take us back to the majority vs the minority issue. If you believe in certain limitations and I believe in other different limits, whose beliefs and views shall be implemented? Yours or mine?
Who shall say that these limitations are okay or not, aren't they the people?

I see what you're saying: should a society decide that everyone has rights or just the majority has rights?

I think this has a pretty clear cut answer if you ask me, but if you do believe that only the majority should have rights then I guess we really do just fundamentally disagree.

If the majority can vote away rights of the minority then that means it's a system where only the majority has rights. That isn't "freedom." That's mob rule, little different from vikings showing up in town and taking stuff from the lesser armed people. That's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

As for alcohol and drugs, yes if necessary to limit a little the so called personal freedom to drink and use drugs, to prevent harm on the scale of the society, then let it be. If it's tyrannical, so be it. If a drug was proved to cause harm to others on a large scale, and its harms by far outweigh its benefits (if there were any) and banning it will definitely be for the best of interest of the society; then ban it.

Please explain to me how it's different to ban alcohol and not religion? Yes some people abuse alcohol and kill people. But people also abuse religion and kill people. What's the difference?

Do you also advocate banning hang gliding, mountain climbing, etc.? You've never directly answered these questions so far, and I'm very interested in your answer to them.

As for the alcohol ban in the US, yes I am very familiar with it. What else do we expect from people who sleep and wake up on alcohol and other who are dependent on it? On the contrary, Islam indeed could eliminate alcohol from the lives of Muslims (or most Muslims) from 1400 years ago until now even if there were no laws that ban it, even if drinking alcohol was a norm of the surrounding society.

So... I don't understand why you're proposing there should be a law, if as you admit Muslims do just fine from simply abstaining from alcohol of their own free will while non-Muslims are free to enjoy it if they wish?

Btw, I heard that there are many "idiots" in the US. There are around 15 million people who are alcohol abuser there.

There are a lot of idiots in the US in general, much of it linked to poverty. The US isn't perfect, but its ideology is in the right direction. Poverty leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to abusing things (like religion, alcohol, drugs, sex, spousal abuse, crime in general). That's a social issue that USA needs to combat by improving education. I agree with you that there are a lot of idiots in America. But I don't agree that we should ban everything they mess up just because they're idiots. They also crash cars into one another in what's called "road rage," should we ban vehicles because idiots do that, too?

This idea of "banning stuff some people abuse for the good of the whole" is untenable. You'd end up banning everything if you're consistent -- including religion.

I don't mind anyone believing that my views, Islamic Shari'a are tyrannical...etc. Just like I do view that secularism and its systems spread immorality, evil and corruption in a lot of cases. I must say that there should be legal channels for the political opposition and for defending your case if you faced injustice.
As I said, freedom of religion should be granted, non Muslims can form their own courts to settle disputes among them in certain areas. Some laws won't be applied on non Muslims and I am sure some others will be applied on them but honestly I don't know what is the limit and to what degree.
And the Muslim who lives in any secular country naturally submits to the legal system there and he will have to follow the rules of the different systems there.

Muslims can in fact form communities and make their own laws for their community as long as their laws don't violate anyone's rights. For instance if Saudi immigrants tried cutting off the hand of one of their own because of thievery that would be illegal, of course. But they could ban alcohol and tobacco on their own property for instance.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well the round top is a pretty stable structure and since such a design is only used for a Masjid (mosque) it looks pretty neat and spottable from a distance in a way that a muslim does not even have to ask around which one is the masjid out of all these houses?(in case he's a passerby) And to us its not displeasing, not at all! Its pretty sightly among the block headed buildings, since one area usually only has one masjid( like one in a specific colony)

I think they look pleasing, but they're legal in America from what I found. I don't know why Europe is banning them. So, I don't think this is a "secular free government" issue but a "Europe being weird" issue, I already disagree with a lot of European bans on Islamic stuff.

Each prayer is very small , like lasting between 4- 8 minutes, the mandatory prayer and the supplemental voluntary prayers lasting upto one's convenience and will. Yes the CALL for prayer (Aazan) is what is actually the call for prayer so its required to be heard atleast uptill some distance. And well its music to our years even though we get to listen to it everyday in a muslim country, and prayers are not so much fun without the Call of Aazan in non-muslim countries, its kind of not fun. (like dancing without music?)

There are ways around disrupting the neighborhood though, such as starting a radio station for it and the website I posted elsewhere that shows the direction to pray and the time to pray. Muslim communities could easily and cheaply establish a radio station or simply meet up at the times of prayer and do the call for prayer there (it's entirely legal to sing even at the top of your lungs on the streets, just without loudspeakers).

Yes, people play loud music all the time which is noise to the ears of many, but can other people complain? Why can people blast music and not prayers In a non -muslim country? In a muslim country though all kinds of painful death metal tunes and trance can be heard on the speakers, why can't muslim give Aazan on the medium loud volume, not too loud, that isn't allowed either in a muslim community.

Actually it's called "disturbing the peace" to play music loudly and police will even pull over cars that have their car stereos up too loud. It's not legal for ANYONE to do it unless they get a permit from the city for an event such as a concert in the park or something.

 

[Sahar]

I see what you're saying: should a society decide that everyone has rights or just the majority has rights?

I think this has a pretty clear cut answer if you ask me, but if you do believe that only the majority should have rights then I guess we really do just fundamentally disagree.

If the majority can vote away rights of the minority then that means it's a system where only the majority has rights. That isn't "freedom." That's mob rule, little different from vikings showing up in town and taking stuff from the lesser armed people. That's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

You didn't address my point nor did you answer my questions. You said there should be limits on the majority will, I asked you; who put these limits?

 

[Meow Mix]

You didn't address my point nor did you answer my questions. You said there should be limits on the majority will, I asked you; who put these limits?

The society does; I included that in my answer. I said:

"should a society decide that everyone has rights or just the majority has rights?"

The society either decides that everyone in the society has rights or if just the majority has rights; and how much it takes to be in the "majority." Ostensibly there may be trouble at first at deciding even that since how do you know what a majority is until it's settled amongst people without a standard of what a "majority" is to tell who won the vote?

Maybe I should be more clear: the majority decides on whether everyone has rights or if just the majority has rights. One of these systems is fair while the other one is mob rule.

 

[beenie]

Well can we say the same about the secular govts. about protecting the rights and practices of the muslims? The whole idea of living in a Muslim country revolves around the freedom that comes with being a muslim. For instance, in ANY secular State in Europe or in the US, the Masjids (Mosques) are not allowed to build a round 'gumbad'(minaret) at their top because ,well its not allowed. Muslims recognize a masjid from afar because of its top structure. And You know much debate there is for building a mosque in a metropolitan city anyway, no ready access to which hampers our religious duties.

minarets are allowed in America as far as i know.

Secondly, Secular states do not even allow the call of prayer to be made which is an utmost requirement of our prayer 5 times a day, but its prohibited. One can understand the implication but why would a secular person feel that his interests that go against Islam, in an Islamic country should be protected inspite of the fact that secular states do not protect several community and various personal rights of the Muslim minority.

secular countries have no obligation to allow you to call to prayer outside of the mosque, and it should stay that way, IMO. you can certainly pray without the adhan being blared out over the neighborhoods; just set up a jamaat at a given time and do it. i don't believe in disturbing others (in a secular country, the majority) so the minority can feel like their rights are being granted. no one is stopping the prayer, just the loud call to it. while i may find the adhan beautiful, others won't.

So, when a secular state allows a muslim to perform Azaan in their country, we'll see if your rights can be protected too in a religious state. But I doubt you'd find any pork or whiskey in an Islamic country, our religion forbids our involvement in these things at any level from production to packaging or import. But you wont be bored a day without these things if you were to visit a muslim country anyway, there's plenty to choose from.

no secular country should allow the Adhan to be played so that Muslim countries give non-Muslim citizens their basic rights. how conceited that sounds.

And as for minority rights, all of them are protected from their worship to their beliefs. But in any such case where minorities cannot survive without pork and alcohol, i'm sure they'd move to the country of their liking, there's plenty to choose from. So far, the minorities in our country (as much as i know) are pretty ok without readily available alcohol. Its available but not easily.

i believe these items should be made available; it's our duty to avoid them. i'm against banning just about anything, so i'm consistent. once one reaches adulthood, i believe we have the right and obligation to make our own choices.

 

[Sahar]

Please explain to me how it's different to ban alcohol and not religion? Yes some people abuse alcohol and kill people. But people also abuse religion and kill people. What's the difference?

Do you also advocate banning hang gliding, mountain climbing, etc.? You've never directly answered these questions so far, and I'm very interested in your answer to them.

What do you mean by religion abuse? Do yo have certain criteria to define it?
I see the more the religion, the better. :cover:
Well, it can be argued that who kill people went against Islam. So why should it be banned?

Do you also advocate banning hang gliding, mountain climbing, etc.? You've never directly answered these questions so far, and I'm very interested in your answer to them.

No.
These things don't lead to mind and judgment clouding. Secondly, it doesn't cause harm to other people and the society. If someone want to jump from a mountain, he is free...

So... I don't understand why you're proposing there should be a law, if as you admit Muslims do just fine from simply abstaining from alcohol of their own free will while non-Muslims are free to enjoy it if they wish?

No, I was making a contrast between Islam's prohibition of alcohol and its successful experience on one hand and your country's prohibition on the other hand.

There are a lot of idiots in the US in general, much of it linked to poverty.

I wouldn't call alcoholics idiots because they abused alcohol. At many times, we face serious problems and huge pressure and we get weak and in addition to the genetic factor. If alcohol and other drugs were legally available and can be found everywhere, I won't blame them for resorting to them more than those who are responsible for its legal availability.

They also crash cars into one another in what's called "road rage," should we ban vehicles because idiots do that, too?

At the very least, they are sober and fully aware so they must bear the responsibility of their intentional mistakes. The same for any crime or law violation. That's why soberness is important.

This idea of "banning stuff some people abuse for the good of the whole" is untenable. You'd end up banning everything if you're consistent -- including religion.

No, not really.

 

[Sahar]

The society does; I included that in my answer. I said:

"should a society decide that everyone has rights or just the majority has rights?"

The society either decides that everyone in the society has rights or if just the majority has rights; and how much it takes to be in the "majority." Ostensibly there may be trouble at first at deciding even that since how do you know what a majority is until it's settled amongst people without a standard of what a "majority" is to tell who won the vote?

Maybe I should be more clear: the majority decides on whether everyone has rights or if just the majority has rights. One of these systems is fair while the other one is mob rule.

So at the end it is the majority's decision, no?
In addition who will define these rights? The majority?

 

[Meow Mix]

What do you mean by religion abuse? Do yo have certain criteria to define it?
I see the more the religion, the better. :cover:
Well, it can be argued that who kill people went against Islam. So why should it be banned?

Because religion affects judgements and decisions. The person who blew up buildings with children in them in Oklahoma City was clouded by religion, not alcohol. The people who flew airplanes into buildings in New York were clouded by religion, not alcohol. The people who put Muslims to the sword in the Crusades were clouded by religion, not alcohol. Religion, like alcohol, does cloud judgement and decisions when taken in excess.

Also in the reverse, alcohol doesn't cloud judgement and decisions when not taken in excess. "It can be argued that those who drink and drive go against responsible drinking." See? There's responsible religion and then there's abusing religion, there's also responsible drinking and then abusing alcohol.

No.
These things don't lead to mind and judgment clouding. Secondly, it doesn't cause harm to other people and the society. If someone want to jump from a mountain, he is free...

Somewhere along the way you or somebody raised the point of medical bills spent on smoking/alcohol for people who do them in excess. Well, why aren't we considering the medical bills of extreme sports? I'm just pointing out the inconsistency. The medical bills for unhealthy eating are actually higher in some countries than the medical bills for smoking. Where's the call to ban unhealthy food, then, just because some abuse it? Where's the consistency?

I wouldn't call alcoholics idiots because they abused alcohol. At many times, we face serious problems and huge pressure and we get weak and in addition to the genetic factor. If alcohol and other drugs were legally available and can be found everywhere, I won't blame them for resorting to them more than those who are responsible for its legal availability.

I would call them idiots for abusing alcohol. Serious problems and huge pressure requires good friends and in extreme cases professional help, not a bottle. Consuming alcohol to drown sorrows is ABUSING it, and that's idiotic. Responsible use of alcohol only involves supplementing a night with friends in a safe environment for the purpose of having fun; it's unhealthy and irresponsible to drink for a purpose other than having fun (such as to intentionally alter the mind to avoid feeling bad).

At the very least, they are sober and fully aware so they must bear the responsibility of their intentional mistakes. The same for any crime or law violation. That's why soberness is important.

No, not really.

Like I pointed out, religion -- like alcohol -- changes the mind when it's abused and leads to violence, aggression, even death. Both things become dangerous when abused.

Both things are harmless when not abused.

Why ban one and not the other just because of the actions of a few idiots? It doesn't make sense.