A glance at Saudi government-approved fatwas

[Meow Mix]

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

Yeah, the majority decides whether to conquer the minority or to be civil and grant rights to all.

Like I said, it's either freedom or mob rule.

If the majority decides that only they get rights and they don't want to bother protecting the rights of the minority, it's no different from vikings or something invading and just taking over. It's mob rule, and in my eyes primitive and barbaric. Freedom is the best way in my opinion.

 

[Sahar]

And who will define these rights?

 

[Meow Mix]

And who will define these rights?

Certainly not religious taboos that not everyone believes in.

It's more cautious to just grant rights to life, liberty and happiness; rights that end where others' rights begin. Thus no stealing, no murdering, no raping, or anything like that because it violates others' rights.

But there's certainly no reason to ban pork, and certainly no reason to ban cigarettes or alcohol. No reason to ban homosexuality or mixed swimming pools either, or anything like that. These things only come from religious taboos and aren't supported by reason.

Reason is universal, religious taboos are not. Religious taboos can be observed by those that believe them though, of course. Forcing it onto others though is oppressive.

 

[Sahar]

Certainly not religious taboos that not everyone believes in.

It's more cautious to just grant rights to life, liberty and happiness; rights that end where others' rights begin. Thus no stealing, no murdering, no raping, or anything like that because it violates others' rights.

But there's certainly no reason to ban pork, and certainly no reason to ban cigarettes or alcohol. No reason to ban homosexuality or mixed swimming pools either, or anything like that. These things only come from religious taboos and aren't supported by reason.

Reason is universal, religious taboos are not. Religious taboos can be observed by those that believe them though, of course. Forcing it onto others though is oppressive.

Reason is universal? Well, I don't view allowing alcohol as reasonable? I don't view secularism as reasonable? So?
Again who will define these rights? According to whose reason?

 

[Meow Mix]

Reason is universal? Well, I don't view allowing alcohol as reasonable? I don't view secularism as reasonable? So?
Again who will define these rights? According to whose reason?

But you're being inconsistent. Your stated reason for disallowing alcohol applies to other things and you don't want to ban those. That isn't reasonable because it's inconsistent. You haven't so far given a good, consistent reason to ban alcohol for everyone.

Why isn't secularism reasonable? I'm still interested in knowing what about secular free systems that would force you to do something against your will or disallow you from doing something that you want to do. I don't understand yet what the problem is.

 

[Badran]

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.

I also said in the same sentence that if it can be argued that a certain act has to do with hurting others etc...

I said Islamic teachings are not laws unless two things: They are clarified to be as such, or if something can be argued to be.....

If these are not the standards, what are? Do you mean that its open? Do you agree with countries that prison Muslims who don't fast?

 

[Sahar]

But you're being inconsistent. Your stated reason for disallowing alcohol applies to other things and you don't want to ban those. That isn't reasonable because it's inconsistent. You haven't so far given a good, consistent reason to ban alcohol for everyone.

Why isn't secularism reasonable? I'm still interested in knowing what about secular free systems that would force you to do something against your will or disallow you from doing something that you want to do. I don't understand yet what the problem is.

I won't argue the inconsistent part now. Because it's totally dependent on how I view it. I don't see inconsistency and I believe my view is reasonable. So it appears that reason is not universal. We view "reason" differently and until now you didn't answer my direct question which I have repeated multiple times.

 

[Badran]

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.

So you were just saying that its more practical in a secular state to not restrict people's rights, and that its understandable that if such liberal countries are still doing this, that Muslim countries do too? If so, i did misunderstand.

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.

Could you give an example of which countries are you talking about?

 

[Meow Mix]

I won't argue the inconsistent part now. Because it's totally dependent on how I view it. I don't see inconsistency and I believe my view is reasonable. So it appears that reason is not universal. We view "reason" differently and until now you didn't answer my direct question which I have repeated multiple times.

I wasn't avoiding it or anything, I just didn't realize you were putting an emphasis on it. Sorry

I don't see how you're unable to see the inconsistency, though. I mean, if your position is "We should ban things that harm people, even if it's only a few people abusing those things we should ban it for everyone" then I don't see how you can ban alcohol and NOT religion, and NOT extreme sports, and NOT unhealthy food. That's totally inconsistent.

So, I think you need to further define why you think alcohol should be banned because "Banning things that harm people, even if it's only a minority that do the harming" leads to banning other things that you don't think should be banned. That's inconsistent.

 

[Sahar]

You didn't answer the question, really. :banghead3
Every one sees his position as the reasonable one, our counterparts won't see it reasonable as we do but to us it is reasonable and that is enough. Being consistent or inconsistent is irrelevant to the question in hand. Suppose I told you sorry my position is consistent and you view the opposite, so what? I don't have to prove to you that my position is reasonable and consistent to answer the question of according to who, rights and reason are defined...because there will be disagreement. This is the reality.
You spoke of rights; I believe in rights and freedoms too but we will define rights and freedoms differently and this is according to every one's understanding of "reason" and "reasonable". Until now I didn't know who will define the rights. Those who support my position or those who support yours? Why should I submit to your version of rights and freedoms? Just because you think they are more reasonable? But they aren't to me.
The point is at the end and practically the majority defines everything, the majority decide whether they should protect the minority rights or not and absolutely they decide what these rights are. And this is going to vary from people to another.
So when the public opinion thinks homosexual marriage is not okay, it was illegal and when it started to change under the influence of the pro-gay social and political groups or whatever reasons, legality of homosexual marriage became an option and now a right. The same for abortion for example. If the majority decides that hijab, niqab, minarets and adhan are not rights, they become illegal even in the house of secularism and the so called liberal democracy. You will say I don't think this is fair and I say your opinion is irrelevant, when people in France for instance said they didn't want hijab in schools and governmental buildings or niqab in public places, nothing could stop them.

 

[Meow Mix]

You didn't answer the question, really. :banghead3
Every one sees his position as the reasonable one, our counterparts won't see it reasonable as we do but to us it is reasonable and that is enough. Being consistent or inconsistent is irrelevant to the question in hand. Suppose I told you sorry my position is consistent and you view the opposite, so what? I don't have to prove to you that my position is reasonable and consistent to answer the question of according to who, rights and reason are defined...because there will be disagreement. This is the reality.
You spoke of rights; I believe in rights and freedoms too but we will define rights and freedoms differently and this is according to every one's understanding of "reason" and "reasonable". Until now I didn't know who will define the rights. Those who support my position or those who support yours? Why should I submit to your version of rights and freedoms? Just because you think they are more reasonable? But they aren't to me.
The point is at the end and practically the majority defines everything, the majority decide whether they should protect the minority rights or not and absolutely they decide what these rights are. And this is going to vary from people to another.
So when the public opinion thinks homosexual marriage is not okay, it was illegal and when it started to change under the influence of the pro-gay social and political groups or whatever reasons, legality of homosexual marriage became an option and now a right. The same for abortion for example. If the majority decides that hijab, niqab, minarets and adhan are not rights, they become illegal even in the home of secularism and the so called liberal democracy. You will say I don't think this is fair and I say your opinion is irrelevant, when people in France for instance said they didn't want hijab in schools and governmental buildings or niqab in public places, nothing could stop them.

That's not true: a constitution stops it. It is illegal in America for everyone to vote that they think... say, green eyed people can't vote. Even if 99% of the people believed that green eyed people can't vote, they couldn't force that because it's unconstitutional.

It's embedded in the constitution that the majority does not have the ability to vote away the rights of the minority.

Let me put it this way: if you were to fall through a wormhole of some kind and fell into the country and government I'm describing, nothing would happen to you. You'd be able to live out your life just the way you like it: enjoying the practices you want to enjoy and abstaining from those that you don't want any part of.

But if I fell through a wormhole into the country you describe, I would be oppressed. I'd be unable to sip on some jack with my friends at the bar or head out to the porch for a cigarette while we talk about music or whatever. In no way am I harming anyone whatsoever if I'm able to do these things, but your system would still be oppressing me. Why?

How is that fair? I describe a system where both you and I are happy. You describe a system where only you are happy. It's hard to picture your system as anything other than wanting to control other people from doing things you don't like, even if it's none of your business what they do (they aren't harming you).

As for consistencies, yes they do matter!

As one of our American forefathers said, "I disagree with what you say, but I'd fight to the death for your right to say it." Why? Because for freedom to work it must be consistent. I disagree with a lot of things people do but I agree with their right to do it. To say "This should be allowed but not that, I don't like that" would be inconsistent. My system that I'm describing is consistent, so far you haven't explained how yours can be consistent. So far you're only saying "This should be banned because I don't like it" basically. You make arguments like "some people abuse it," but the point is that your argument doesn't justify what you're trying to do because you're applying the argument inconsistently -- applying it to smoking and not fatty foods for instance, or applying it to alcohol but not religion. Consistency DOES matter.

 

[Sahar]

Btw, until now I didn't know what you mean by "religion abuse" or "religion dependence". Also is there something called atheism abuse?
And as I said, the more the religion, the better. Those who blow buildings and people suffer from lack of religion. This is how I view it. So I don't know why Islam should be banned.

 

[Levite]

The Associated Press: A glance at Saudi government-approved fatwas

TAKING FLOWERS TO THE SICK:

_ "This practice is impermissible as it entails wasting money on non-useful purposes and imitating Allah's adversaries in this custom."

___

CINEMAS:

_ "It is not permissible for a Muslim to build a cinema, or run it for himself or for another person, due to the forbidden kinds of amusement it provides. As shown today around the globe, it presents obscene scenes and images that provoke desires and promote lewdness and immorality. Furthermore, it helps women mix with men who are not Mahram (spouse or unmarriageable relatives)."
___

SWIMMING POOLS:

_ "The mingling of boys and girls in studying is Haram (prohibited). The same applies to showering and swimming while naked (or semi naked) in a swimming pool, whether they are young or old, for the Fitnah (sedition) occurring due to this, and for seeing each others' 'Awrah' (private parts of the body that must be covered in public), this is also considered a means to mischief and evil."

___

RELATIONS WITH NON-MUSLIMS:

"A Muslim should not begin greeting the non-Muslims. However, when the Jews, Christians, or others offer Salam (greetings), he should reply "Wa `Alaykum" (the same to you) ... These are some of the rights the non-Muslims have on Muslims. This also includes the right of being a good neighbor. You must not harm your non-Muslim neighbors. You should give them charity if they are needy."

"It is not permissible for a Muslim to follow the funeral of a Kafir (disbeliever), for this is considered an act of loyalty to them which is Haram (prohibited). However, consoling them is acceptable."

"Relationships based on mutual affection, love and brotherhood between a Muslim and a Kafir are prohibited. It might render a Muslim as a Kafir. There is nothing wrong, however, if the kind of relationship developed between the Muslim and Kafir does not go beyond selling and buying or accepting the Kafir's invitation to have lawful food with him or accepting a lawful present, provided that no harm is done to the Muslim's faith."

What else should we expect? This is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, in any religion, is oppressive and xenophobic. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Sahar]

It's embedded in the constitution

Who embedded it in the first place? Not the majority? Shouldn't the constitution drive its legitimacy from the majority?

Also why didn't the constitution stop France the liberal democracy from outlawing hijab and niqab? Or Adhan and minarets in other European countries that are liberal democracies?

 

[Sahar]

I swear, I went into the same exact tiring debate a few months ago. People believe that the constitution comes out of the blue or something. Or maybe it comes from the moon...

Meow Mix, I did my best and I only repeat myself over and over.
And no I won't be happy under a secular system. Your ideologies and views are not superior to mine and they won't make me happy. So we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Meow Mix]

Btw, until now I didn't know what you mean by "religion abuse" or "religion dependence". Also is there something called atheism abuse?

If someone infringed other people's rights because of some sort of extremist atheism then yeah, I guess.

And as I said, the more the religion, the better. Those who blow buildings and people suffer from lack of religion. This is how I view it. So I don't know why Islam should be banned.

Why do you get to distinguish religious people who bomb buildings from you, but you won't allow me to distinguish irresponsible alcoholics from me?

It also misses the point I'm making unfairly.

 

[Meow Mix]

Who embedded it in the first place? Not the majority? Shouldn't the constitution drive its legitimacy from the majority?

Also why didn't the constitution stop France the liberal democracy from outlawing hijab and niqab? Or Adhan and minarets in other European countries that are liberal democracies?

I already said that the majority decides who gets rights or not, but it's RIGHT for them to decide that everyone gets rights... not just the majority.

It''s evil and reprehensible for them to just vote away the rights of the minority like in the system you're describing. It's the definition of tyranny, thinly veiled as legitimate because voting is taking place. Mob rule is tyranny.

I don't know about the French constitution or the constitutions of any of those other countries; they may not have religious freedom in their constitutions. It sure doesn't sound like they do.

 

[Meow Mix]

I swear, I went into the same exact tiring debate a few months ago. People believe that the constitution comes out of the blue or something. Or maybe it comes from the moon...

Meow Mix, I did my best and I only repeat myself over and over.
And no I won't be happy under a secular system. Your ideologies and views are not superior to mine and they won't make me happy. So we will have to agree to disagree.

But I'm really curious as to why you wouldn't be happy in a secular, religiously free system.

Can you please answer what you would be prohibited from doing that you'd want to do (aside from maybe adhan and noise issues)?

Then can you please answer what you would be forced to do that you don't want to do?

I want to understand more what you wouldn't like about living in a secular country.

I have to admit that it APPEARS as though what you wouldn't like is being unable to force everyone to contort to your beliefs. I hope that isn't the case, that's why I'm trying to understand what it is you wouldn't like about it.

I mean, it just appears as though someone who says "X should be banned," but can't rationally explain why and ignores inconsistencies with attempted explanations, just thinks it should be banned because they think so. It seems likewise that the only reason someone would be unhappy in a secular free society where they could do what they want and wouldn't be forced to do anything they didn't want might be because they can't force their style on others. That's the only reason I can think of not to like a free society: being unable to force other people to do or abstain from things, since that's the one thing people aren't allowed to do in free societies. So, I don't get it. Help me understand why you'd dislike it if it isn't that.

 

[darkendless]

It won't do any good if men don a burqa and rob a bank.

That really screwed it for everyone. As if muslims doing the right thing didn't cop enough trouble with "islamaphobia." I don't recall it being much of an issue until things like 9/11 and men wearing burqas causing trouble.

Well I don't fully understand why anyone would choose to wear a burqa I won't criticize it. There was a post by fullyvieledmuslimah who converted to Islam in America and chose to wear a burqa. Her reasoning and love for God is quite endearing. So while I won't wear it myself (although being a man all this is conjecture and moot), I won't prohibit another from doing.

I don't understand why women wear shorts that are so short its as if they're not wearing shorts at all. But like a burqa, its their choice, just at the other end of the spectrum.

It is now illegal to wear in France. There was a politician who also tried this in Australia but the move didn't pass. I think that as time will pass other countries will also adopt this ban including Denmark and Switzerland. I understand that the burqa is intimidating, it still makes me uncomfortable, but I won't restrict the freedoms of others.

Yeh the idiot who tried it in Australia lost his job and even ultra nationalist parties told him that it was a breach of freedom. The Burqa will never be banned in Australia because to be honest, although it can be intimidating to see, we have bigger issues to deal with and who cares what people wear?

With regard to France i believe as a democratic nation they have the right to pass their own laws. While i don't agree with it, sadly the majority can put through law to prevent individual freedoms. Same sex marriage is similar across the west, the majority over rule the vocal minority and common decency aside, those with the most numbers always win.

Well in Arizona helmets aren't required, a byproduct of the intense heat I believe that can cause people to hallucinate, but I'm not a big fan of the state telling me what to do either.

Really. I'd hate to be the attending officer for motorcycle accidents over there then. It would be like cleaning up jam. Its no hotter than here though, a university friend has just come back from a rugby scholarship at ASU.

The reason i cited the law though was that the interests of safety and common law were relaxed because of the head dress which i find rediculous. While they should be able to wear them, common sense should take over when riding a motorcycle and they should realise in the event of an accident a helmet may prevent serious head trauma.

 

[Autodidact]

why do you not understand!!:areyoucra Islamic law PROTECTS the rights of other religions residing in an islamic state.

Does this sort of Islamic law currently exist anywhere in the world?