abu_rashid wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

fd we're all adults here I assume, so you can dispense with the infantile concept pf freedom that you seem to be clinging onto. Freedom is not absolute, for anyone, nor is it universal for anyone. Your constant attempts to equate the freedom of self-determination for a nation/people with individual freedoms to carry out certain acts really displays what kind of an intellectually immature mind we're dealing with here. Please try a little harder.

Abu, are you suggesting that if a nation stones someone to death for converting from Islam to another religion, they are not denying freedom and rights, but merely expressing another type of right?

What I'm suggesting is really beyond your comprehension fd, you've shown that enough times already.

Unqualified freedom is not what you believe in, so using the term as if you do just looks foolish.

Freedom is a term which needs to be placed into context.

I can give you examples, but i fear it will just go straight over...

eg. Usamah Bin Laden fought for the freedom of the Muslims from the interference and occupations of the West. <-- Freedom here clearly has a very distinct meaning and a very specific context.

Likewise: Freediver believes in the freedom to convert from religion to religion. <-- Again freedom here clearly has a specific context.

Does this statement of yours mean you believe in the freedom for men to have 4 wives? Or the freedom of a man to be in charge of his household? Or the freedom of people to marry once attaining puberty?

The freedom to be in charge? What does that mean? The freedom to deny freedom?


Quote:

eg. Usamah Bin Laden fought for the freedom of the Muslims from the interference and occupations of the West. <-- Freedom here clearly has a very distinct meaning and a very specific context.

So they could deny everyone else basic freedoms? That is, not the freedom of the people, but their 'freedom' to subjugate the people?

Is that a yes to the 'different/Islamic freedom' concept?