That last post was very elegant. So we have differences, mostly based on religious difference, but I suspect we are MUCH more alike than different. And even though I don’t personally feel bound to religious laws, I would be very unlikely to violate those laws anyway since most would exhibit poor taste and hatred anyway. I very much appreciate your perspective on all this. Thanks!

gary

Where we differ, I believe in Allah and that His way of life is the answer, where as you believe in the priniciples of democracy and man made legislation is the way forward.

From what i see i disagree on what you call freedom of speech etc anywhere where it violates the rights of the Creator and His way of life, ie Islam.

I do not disagree about confronting Tyrants, Oppressors, and those who spread corruption in the land, whether by speech etc.

I believe that maybe our definitions of corruption and oppression, we may not always agree, but to clarify what i mean in regards to see of in the name of ‘freedom of speech’ in terms of innappropiate and spitefull manifestations:

-The insulting of Prophet Muhammad SAWS through the Caricatures, calling this execising ones freedom of speech, where no one even (rightfully) dared do the same to the Jewish Community or to dare even mention the holocaust under the same prinicples, except they were imprisoned under a special law that denys any discussion of such matters.

-Or the number of videos of non muslims abusing the Quran eg in Guantanamo,
-its defilement by the US army in Iraq
-or youtube videos of its flushing down toilets and various other acts.

This only further invalidates the concept freedom of speech/democracy for permitting/advocating such.

We have a verse in the Quran:
وَقُولُواْ لِلنَّاسِ حُسْناً
“And say to mankind (ie Muslim or otherwise) that which is of goodness” Chapter2 verse83

This is a major principle in Islam, which encompasses the leaving of lewd and filthy language to not belittlling others with crudeness, and would not leave us Muslims free to abuse others as was mentioned hitherto.

After all, it is the right of those dictators to participate in the UN.

Are you serious? On what grounds do you believe that dictators have a right to paricipate? Because they have managed to stomp out democratic reform in their respective countries? Because they have lots of weapons? Please clarify.

these problems will never be eliminated

Totally disagree. This becomes a self-fulfilling propecy.

and the US is one of the major violators of this.

Agree. I see the purpose of the United Democratic Nations as improving existing democracies as well as creating new ones.

gary

I agree that the UN has to do better, but I want to reiterate again that the UN is not independant. As citizens of the world, it’s failures are on our shoulders, just like the failures of the US are on the shoulders of the US citizens. After all, it is the right of those dictators to participate in the UN. World powers for YEARS (and even before the UN) have been trying to solve the problems of dictators, democracy, and genocide – these problems will never be eliminated, but our reactions to them can evolve and change to hopefully lessen the effects. The UN is simply trying to change these reactions through COLLECTIVE action, and that is extremely difficult, especially when the UN has limited powers. Compare it to how hard it is for the US Congress to pass a certain bill or declaration – and now multiply that times 50 and that’s what the UN is facing.

I am certainly not arguing to give the UN a free pass to sit back and not do anything – I would advocate for serious changes to the Security Council, ect – but I also simply believe that the UN could improve if its participating countries are willing to give it some tools to do so – and the US is one of the major violators of this. The US does not want anyone telling it what to do, least of all an international body that may tell it No.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew before joining this forum that the term Muslim covered a wide range of beliefs…now I’m seeing it in person.

————————————————–

Muhammad the Roman,

I agree with your frustration with the US. One minor clarification…in this country the people ARE the government, so making a distinction between the government and the people is unnecessary. The wrongs of the US rest squarely on the shoulder of the US citizens, sometimes for making bad decisions, but even more often for not paying attention at all. It’s easy to do when you’re more worried about which ipod to purchase than being invaded. In so many ways the US is a sleeping giant, still mostly asleep.

And you’re absolutely correct…defining freedom, free speech, and democracy is very difficult to do. Wise men have been working on it for centuries. I think the founders of my country (USA) did a decent job of this with our constitution (not that we always follow it). But there’s really no alternative. If we are lazy and make no distincion between a free democratic system and a dictatorship, we will end up with lots of dictatorships due to human nature (power corrupts absolutely). As much as I rail against the United Nations, there’s a group within the UN that has made an admirable attempt. It’s called the Democratic Caucus. Here’s there attempt at answering your questions…
http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/CD_participation_criteria.pdf

So my answer to your question is that we MUST to the hard work required to answer your excellently worded questions. Our children will have better lives if we do.

————————————————–

Jessica M.,

We obviously have much in common with our beliefs. Probably the only place where I differ is your assumption that we need patience with the UN. Seventy years is far to long for nuclear proliferations to not be under control, for genocide to still be occurring across the globe, and for such a large percentage of the world to still live under dictatorship. If I thought we were moving forward I might be willing to sit still. But that’s not what I see. The UN has lost credibility from almost everyone you talk to, either here in the USA or with people on this forum in the middle east. And it’s very clear to me that, if we truly believe in the principle of democracy, our global organization needs to reflect that belief. We can’t have a security council where relatively small or dictatorial countries manipulate global policy. That’s just not acceptible. We can do much better. If we’re to avoid millions of senseless deaths in the future, we’ve GOT to do better.

gary

To add to this discussion, yes, blogging is a great way to share and hopefully increase tolerance. I personally stumbled onto this website after signing Ayman Nour’s petition to be released from Egyptian jail, and I have great respect for everyone on here who faces the real threat of being imprisoned for what you say and believe. I am lucky that I do not face such threats, and I am frustrated that my country funds regimes who impose such restrictions and foster extremist ideas.

Of course history’s treatment of Muslims has been unfair at times, just as it has been unfair to Jews and Christians. No religion is without historial blemish, and as Gary previously alluded to – that very fact is what makes the complete seperation of church and state such a necessity.

Gary, in response to your original comment on the UN – although I agree that it can be – at times – a “cruel joke,” I want to remind you that the UN is only as good as the countries which make it up. The UN is not some independant body which makes its own decisions – and it has every opinion from all around the world to factor in. This task of course is not easy, and the UN is still extremely young – world problems that have been around since the begining of time are not going to be fixed in 70ish years by an overarching body with limited power.

Of course, some Muslims think that they need to impose Islamic Law on non-believers.

Where has this been done? I infact seem to recall it happening the other way eg
-the Spanish Inquisition,
the Slavinazation/Christianization program in 1980s Bulgaria against Pomacs and Turks,
Chinas Sinazation of the Muslims,
European Colonialism of the Orient, subcontinent and Maghreb… all imposing non muslim laws and apostate leaders on Muslim majoritys,
-we neednt even mention the agressive French colony of Algeria which designated Algerians as non citizens unless they renounce their islamic faith,
-let alone the Papal wars on Heretic Christians and Muslims to impose their non Muislim Canon upon the Muslims esp. in the E.Med Crusader states.

No.

But in the name of what you term ‘freedom’, ‘free speech’ and ‘democracy’:

1)how are you going to decide what is allowed and what is forbidden; whether opinions, speech or actions?

2)Who will ultimatley decide?

3)And how will you eradicate the oppression and tyranny?

Finnpundit,
Are you being sarcastic?

No, Gary, I was not being sarcastic. There is no way non-Muslims have to subject themselves to Islamic law. We are automatically above Islamic law. Only Muslims need to deal with it.

Of course, some Muslims think that they need to impose Islamic Law on non-believers. These people are Islamofascists and, depending on the level of their bellicosity, they need to be dealt with accordingly, either through argument, or through war.

So are you saying the reverse? Are you saying that this is a just world and that nobody is lacking for freedom?

gary