Is Islam more libertarian/anarchistic than Christianity and the west?

Yes I have read the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran (although this was the english version and was reduced to around 4000 pages).

And blasphemy is illegal in my own country Ireland, and is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. What's more this law was only introduced a year or so ago. And being from a Catholic family and Christian country, I know well what Christians believe. But are people who don't follow the bible word for word actually Christian. After all, it does state that it is the word of God and it is what the religion is based on. So can you really just pick and chose the pieces that you like.

''It's incredible; in three sentences, you've managed to reduce 4,000+ years of detailed argumentation about theology and textual criticism and interpretation to a couple of outlandish, generalized statements''.

Well let me put it this way. Faith means believing in something for which their is no evidence. Well I don't believe in things for which their is no evidence because I am not an idiot.

But this is all a bit off topic. I did not mean to offend anyone with my original comment; I was mearly stating that either religion can have pieces picked out to make it some liberating or oppressive, but when it comes down to the nub of it, when either are practiced devoutly the are both very oppressive.

Nothing contradictory? God loves everyone yet he murders gentiles. Read the Old Testament, a book filled with hate, then read the News Testament, a book filled with love.

I challenge you to provide one occasion of God murdering anyone. Perhaps you were using a hyperbolic term to refer to the Creator of the universe terminating the earthly existence of one of His creations....

The Austrian School promotes individual liberty.

strictly speaking the austrian school promotes value-free economic analysis. You may find that this analysis suggests to you that individual liberty is the best way to achieve your values. You might personally value individual liberty and rely on some austrian philosophy to argue for that value. But you cannot project these values onto the austrian school.

Lucifer asked God for a little more power sharing and he was sent to hell.

lucifer wished to violate God's property rights, which is obviously impossible and deserving of some penalty. But God did and does allow satan to rule parts of earth (for the time being) so what is your point? Does the austrian school lead you to believe that no one deserves to go to hell?

God is a dictator.

cry me a river. God invented liberty, property rights, the non-aggression principle, and condescended to live the life of a human being (complete with being tortured to death) in order to free humankind from sin. God dictates that we may enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so I wonder what part of all of this you have a problem with.

Mises proved in Human action that god as we know him cannot exist: It is impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

God is ontologically superior to humans so I would like to see the passage in Human Action that applies to the Divine.

I find it really difficult not to hate religion and I find it really difficult to find how it is anything but antagonist to the Austrian School.

there is likely a causal relationship between the former (as cause) and the latter (as effect).

Faith means believing in something for which their is no evidence. Well I don't believe in things for which their is no evidence because I am not an idiot.

So I guess anyone who uses logic or math is an idiot in your book?

Just a few examples of God's numerous murders. Unless, you believe that murdering someone is ok because you are only terminating their Earthly existence.

1) Capital Punishment Crimes:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

    You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad

    Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

 

2) God's Murders for Stupid Reasons:

Kill Brats

    From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!"  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.  (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

God Kills the Curious 

    And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter.  And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?   (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)

 

3) Murdering Children

Kill Sons of Sinners

    Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.  (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

God Will Kill Children

    The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived.  Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you.  It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone.  I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre.  But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered."  O LORD, what should I request for your people?  I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk.  The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them.  I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions.  I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels.  The people of Israel are stricken.  Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit.  And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."  (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

 

''strictly speaking the austrian school promotes value-free economic analysis''

Yes, this is correct. I appologise, I was making the assumption that the person I was arguing with  meant individual liberty. Which they most likely did.

 

''lucifer wished to violate God's property rights, which is obviously impossible and deserving of some penalty''

I guess I don't buy your premise. Is owning yourself violating some elses property rights? I would claim that God was violating Lucifer's property rights.

 

''Does the austrian school lead you to believe that no one deserves to go to hell?''

Well I don't believe anybody no matter how heinous their crime deserves to be tortured for all eternity. This is independent of the Austrian School.

 

''cry me a river. God invented liberty, property rights, the non-aggression principle, and condescended to live the life of a human being (complete with being tortured to death) in order to free humankind from sin. God dictates that we may enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so I wonder what part of all of this you have a problem with''.

If God own us and we must live under his strict principals or be sentenced to an eternity in Hell, I struggle to see how he invented liberty. And he had people torture himself to death in order to save us from being killed by himself? This makes absolutely no sense. And God does not dictate that we may enjoy life and liberty, he enforces strict rules to prevent enjoyment of life or achievement of liberty because he will kill us and send us to hell if we break these rules.

 

''God is ontologically superior to humans so I would like to see the passage in Human Action that applies to the Divine''.

Page 69 and 70 of Human Action. And the ontological argument for the existence of God is a pure crap and a cop out.

 

P.S. How do you quote. I always click the button but it only ever worked once. I'm obviously missing something.

''So I guess anyone who uses logic or math is an idiot in your book?''.

Is that not the opposite of what I said. Logic and math are self evident and have been proven to exist.

Funny, I thought they were axiomatic.

Yeah, but you completely disregarded his biblical quotations.

What's the difference?

As for your examples, I must have missed the part where God killed someone wrongly? What moral standard do you propose to apply to the Divine?

I guess I don't buy your premise. Is owning yourself violating some elses property rights? I would claim that God was violating Lucifer's property rights.

Well, God does own the angels. But regardless, God owns heaven and so casting lucifer out was also within our concept of property rights. Furthermore, as your concept of ethics deals with interhuman relations, and both God and angels are ontologically different, you cannot simply apply your notions of interhuman ethics to a relationship between God and His subordinates. So when God punishes lucifer for lucifer's insubordination, you must explain what standard you use to judge this as wrong.

Well I don't believe anybody no matter how heinous their crime deserves to be tortured for all eternity. This is independent of the Austrian School.

what is your evidence for this?

If God own us and we must live under his strict principals or be sentenced to an eternity in Hell, I struggle to see how he invented liberty.

If what? Who told you that failure to live under God's strict principles necessitates an eternity in hell? I thought you said you read the new testament....

And he had people torture himself to death in order to save us from being killed by himself? This makes absolutely no sense.

No kidding. And its relevance to the topic escapes me.

And God does not dictate that we may enjoy life and liberty, he enforces strict rules to prevent enjoyment of life or achievement of liberty because he will kill us and send us to hell if we break these rules.

so you dont enjoy liberty in your daily life? You live in fear of divine punishment every second and this modifies your behavior somehow? I doubt that, I think you do enjoy liberty and subjective freedom of action (trying to avoid a deterministic sideline here) and you arent worried about God striking you dead the instant you deviate from an absolutely moral existence. The fact that life and liberty exist and are enjoyed is evidence that God dictates that we enjoy life and liberty, because God's dictates always come true without exception.

Wheylous:

Yeah, but you completely disregarded his biblical quotations.

Young people are so impatient.

Axioms are assumed, not demonstrated. You cannot provide evidence for an axiom.

Young people are so impatient.

My bad, all I saw was that you had skipped his quotations and instead answered another point.

Its ok dude, I saw his later post before his earlier post. And I probably would have dashed off that reply first anyway, because back-and-forth one-liners read better in chronological order. I was just razzing you because I saw your age in another thread.

''As for your examples, I must have missed the part where God killed someone wrongly? What moral standard do you propose to apply to the Divine?''.

Are you serious? Maybe killing people for being gay, or maybe killing children for mocking a bald man. I propose that the Devine use the same moral standards we do or at least their own standards.

 ''Well, God does own the angels. But regardless, God owns heaven and so casting lucifer out was also within our concept of property rights''

So do you believe that someone can have a higher claim on another individuals life without voluntary exchange?

'' Furthermore, as your concept of ethics deals with interhuman relations, and both God and angels are ontologically different, you cannot simply apply your notions of interhuman ethics to a relationship between God and His subordinates''.

Does this mean you think that no moral standards apply to God and he may do as he likes?

''what is your evidence for this?''

I don't understand your question.

''Who told you that failure to live under God's strict principles necessitates an eternity in hell?''.

Is the Bible not the word of God? So God told me this.

''No kidding. And its relevance to the topic escapes me.''

Well you brought it up.

''so you dont enjoy liberty in your daily life? You live in fear of divine punishment every second and this modifies your behavior somehow? I doubt that, I think you do enjoy liberty and subjective freedom of action (trying to avoid a deterministic sideline here) and you arent worried about God striking you dead the instant you deviate from an absolutely moral existence. The fact that life and liberty exist and are enjoyed is evidence that God dictates that we enjoy life and liberty, because God's dictates always come true without exception.''.

You seem to have misunderstood me. God prevents people who believe in him from enjoying ''liberty'', but liberty even for infidels is not to be enjoyed because it does not exist.

''Axioms are assumed, not demonstrated. You cannot provide evidence for an axiom.''

I've always had a difficulty with this. Are axioms not self evident certain truths? If they are, do they not prove their very own existence?

Are you serious? Maybe killing people for being gay, or maybe killing children for mocking a bald man. I propose that the Devine use the same moral standards we do or at least their own standards.

"maybe"? You dont sound very confident. Why does a human being (who is ontologically subordinate to God) have a superior claim on earthly life than God, who created life, and gave that human being earthly life according to His own dictates and purposes, and is by definition ontologically supreme? are you a vegan? And where, in your opinion, do morals come from?

So do you believe that someone can have a higher claim on another individuals life without voluntary exchange?

Not "someone." God necessarily possesses property rights over all of creation, by definition.

Does this mean you think that no moral standards apply to God and he may do as he likes?

morals originate with God, and whatever morals apply to the Divine Being are necessarily products of the Divine Consciousness.

I don't understand your question.

you said you are not some kind of idiot who believes things without evidence, so pony up. What is your evidence?

Well you brought it up.

whatever nonsense you had posted bears little or no resemblance to my arguments. Jesus did not die on the cross in order to save humanity from "being killed" or whatever. He sacificed himself in order to save mankind from slavery to sin.

You seem to have misunderstood me. God prevents people who believe in him from enjoying ''liberty'', but liberty even for infidels is not to be enjoyed because it does not exist.

how? And how?

Vladimir Ulyanov:

''Axioms are assumed, not demonstrated. You cannot provide evidence for an axiom.''

I've always had a difficulty with this. Are axioms not self evident certain truths? If they are, do they not prove their very own existence?

Axioms are not necessarily self-evident. Just the big four. And you can even find dissent about that, so I hesitate to call anything "self-evident." if they were self-evident I wouldnt have had to spend an entire week demonstrating their utility to a nihilist on these boards a few weeks ago.

''"maybe"? You dont sound very confident''

Let's not be flippant.

''Why does a human being (who is ontologically subordinate to God) have a superior claim on earthly life than God, who created life, and gave that human being earthly life according to His own dictates and purposes, and is by definition ontologically supreme? are you a vegan? And where, in your opinion, do morals come from?''

This is like saying I own my children. No matter how old they are, and that I can use them as slaves or torture them. I don't agree with this. The ontological argument is bullshit. It's like saying I have a claim over someone who is intelectually inferior to me. No I am not a vegan, and I think you make a good point there. In my opinion morals are subjective, and are a construct of the human mind.

''morals originate with God, and whatever morals apply to the Divine Being are necessarily products of the Divine Consciousness''

Does this mean that God has different morals. After all no two different people have identical morals.

''you said you are not some kind of idiot who believes things without evidence, so pony up. What is your evidence?''

I don't know how I can prove this. All I can tell you is that I don't believe in God or any spiritual stuff.

''Jesus did not die on the cross in order to save humanity from "being killed" or whatever. He sacificed himself in order to save mankind from slavery to sin''

Well what would sin have resulted in. God murdering you and sending people to hell.

''how? And how?''

If you don't follow his rules you're screwed. And we are coerced by society.

 

But again I really feel like we have strayed off topic. I was simply stating how both Islam and Christianity are oppressive.

 

If axioms are assumptions does that not, at least partially, discredit any deductions based on them?

I don't like to interpret the koran and then decree that my interpretation is correct; the koran is far to ambiguous and inarticulate for that. But basically, you cannot reconcile a theocratic central power with libertarianism. 

This is like saying I own my children. No matter how old they are, and that I can use them as slaves or torture them. I don't agree with this. The ontological argument is bullshit. It's like saying I have a claim over someone who is intelectually inferior to me. No I am not a vegan, and I think you make a good point there. In my opinion morals are subjective, and are a construct of the human mind.

humans are humans, and therefore ontologically equal. If you eat animal products, then you affirm human ontological superiority to certain species. If morals are a creation of the human mind, then how exactly do you propose to apply them to an omnipotent, omniscient Being?

Does this mean that God has different morals. After all no two different people have identical morals.

morals are objective. Two people may have different subjective opinions about morality, but they both reference an objective moral code that originated in the Mind of God.

I don't know how I can prove this. All I can tell you is that I don't believe in God or any spiritual stuff.

well, bear in mind I didnt ask you for proof, just evidence. So do you now reject your earlier statement?

Well what would sin have resulted in. God murdering you and sending people to hell.

Again with your hyperbolic claims of murder. Still waiting for you to support that.

Yes, sin has consequences. Good thing for us that God is merciful in addition to being just.

If you don't follow his rules you're screwed. And we are coerced by society.

well, thats not exactly accurate, God is merciful and willing to forgive, He even went to great lengths to make this possible, so it's not exactly accurate to say that sin will send you straight to hell. And I wonder how your mention of society is relevant. God is now responsible to you for things that other people do? How is that, exactly?

But again I really feel like we have strayed off topic. I was simply stating how both Islam and Christianity are oppressive.

apparently you are not qualified to write about Christianity. Or should I say that the audience would do well to regard your claims with skepticism.

Vladimir Ulyanov:

If axioms are assumptions does that not, at least partially, discredit any deductions based on them?

As opposed to what? What would have full credit?

Malachi:

humans are humans, and therefore ontologically equal. If you eat animal products, then you affirm human ontological superiority to certain species

I must agree with you on this.

Malachi:

If morals are a creation of the human mind, then how exactly do you propose to apply them to an omnipotent, omniscient Being?

Well you claimed earlier that all morals originate with God. So are we not just applying his morals to him?

Malachi:

well, bear in mind I didnt ask you for proof, just evidence. So do you now reject your earlier statement?

What was my earlier statement? I thought that I said I don't believe in eternal torture for punishment; but I think you were refering to the idiot statement. Well how do you propose I provide evidence. All I can think of is telling you that I don't believe in God.

Malachi:

Again with your hyperbolic claims of murder. Still waiting for you to support that.

How is this hyperbolic. I provided numerous examples of Gods murder to support my claim. The Bible and Koran make it clear; if you sin you will be sent to murdered and/or sent to Hell.

Malachi:

Yes, sin has consequences. Good thing for us that God is merciful in addition to being just.

How is God mercifull or just? Did you not read the few examples I gave of his bizarre murders. Someone is sent to Hell for not believing in him - something for which there is no evidence. But this is assuming a Christian God. Allah sends everyone to hell, but the ''good'' people are eventually released and allowed into Heaven.

Malachi:

well, thats not exactly accurate, God is merciful and willing to forgive, He even went to great lengths to make this possible, so it's not exactly accurate to say that sin will send you straight to hell.

No, no, no, no!

Malachi:

God is now responsible to you for things that other people do? How is that, exactly?

Well if own own a dog am I not responsible if it savages a farmers cow?

Malachi:

apparently you are not qualified to write about Christianity. Or should I say that the audience would do well to regard your claims with skepticism.

What?

''As opposed to what? What would have full credit?''

Something which is based on an undeniable, proven fact.

I don't like to interpret the koran and then decree that my interpretation is correct; the koran is far to ambiguous and inarticulate for that. But basically, you cannot reconcile a theocratic central power with libertarianism. 

Where in the Quran does it call for a central power?

Well you claimed earlier that all morals originate with God. So are we not just applying his morals to him?

you are attempting to claim that acts which are prohibited for humans are also prohibited for God. How so? God prohibits humans from killing other humans except in certain circumstances, most of which explicitly apply to the Old Testament nation of Israel. Your claim that this moral injunction should apply to the Divine needs to be supported. Elsewise you make an ontological error which would be equivalent to claiming that cows eating grass is murder. The grass has the same rights as the cow!

you are entitled to your opinion, but as long as we are discussing this opinion, I would like to see some support.

What was my earlier statement? I thought that I said I don't believe in eternal torture for punishment; but I think you were refering to the idiot statement. Well how do you propose I provide evidence. All I can think of is telling you that I don't believe in God.

Well let me put it this way. Faith means believing in something for which their is no evidence. Well I don't believe in things for which their is no evidence because I am not an idiot.

Well I don't believe anybody no matter how heinous their crime deserves to be tortured for all eternity. This is independent of the Austrian School.

if we want to be rigorous, you literally expressed a lack of belief. So do you believe it is "wrong" to torture someone for all eternity? Or do you not have any belief on the subject because you do not have any evidence to believe anything? Your other posts on this subject would suggest that you do have a belief here.

How is this hyperbolic. I provided numerous examples of Gods murder to support my claim. The Bible and Koran make it clear; if you sin you will be sent to murdered and/or sent to Hell.

"murder" and "killing" are not synonymous. As for your interpretation of the Bible, it is totally incorrect. If that were true then everyone would be condemned to hell because all humans are sinful. The Bible is clear on the fact that God is merciful and forgiving, and those who ask for forgiveness with a sincere heart may receive it. 

1 John 5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life.

Isaiah 59:2 But your sinful acts have alienated you from your God; your sins have caused him to reject you and not listen to your prayers.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

John 3:16-18 For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in Him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

all of these scriptures are just as accessible as the ones where God had smote some human being. 

How is God mercifull or just? Did you not read the few examples I gave of his bizarre murders. Someone is sent to Hell for not believing in him - something for which there is no evidence. But this is assuming a Christian God.

if there is no evidence that God exists then what evidence justifies your claims that He sent people to hell? furthermore, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a living, personal God, but as we know from rational inquiry, all evidence is subject to interpretation. You claim there is "no evidence," a philosopher/scientist would only go so far as to claim that he had not been exposed to any evidence. Your belief that there is no evidence is an article of faith and happens to bias your interpretation of any such evidence. Witness your emotional reaction to a book that you appear to think is not true. Why do atheists get mad when they read about God killing people? That is asinine. As for your question, God is just because He defines "justice." the concept of justice requires reference to a moral standard. You think this moral standard has no existence outside human minds, yet somehow this standard is universally applied to a Being that is by definition, infinitely smarter than you. God is merciful because He extends mercy to some humans. 

No, no, no, no!

your emotive reactions blind you to truth.

Well if own own a dog am I not responsible if it savages a farmers cow?

you are responsible to God, you are responsible to the farmer, you are not responsible to the dog, or the grass. God is ontologically supreme and is not responsible to you for anything.

What?

I said you dont know what youre talking about and people should not trust you on this subject.

Something which is based on an undeniable, proven fact.

give me an example.

And blasphemy is illegal in my own country Ireland, and is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. What's more this law was only introduced a year or so ago. And being from a Catholic family and Christian country, I know well what Christians believe. But are people who don't follow the bible word for word actually Christian. After all, it does state that it is the word of God and it is what the religion is based on. So can you really just pick and chose the pieces that you like.

Well let me put it this way. Faith means believing in something for which their is no evidence. Well I don't believe in things for which their is no evidence because I am not an idiot.

There's a difference between what is and what should be. There is literally no basis at all for any Christians affirming blasphemy laws. As for your other points, I see you've made egregious use of various OT passages. Again, what makes you think they have applicability now? They don't. That was the entire point of Christ's work, namely to redeem use from the law. That you don't know this is no surprise, despite the fact that it's utterly basic theology. Moreover, there is no requirement to 'follow' the entirety of the Bible in order to be a Christian--there are such essential doctrines that one must affirm and certain actions that one engage or refrain from, and beyond that there is great room for individuality. It's easy to find Christians who aren't model examples of Christ and who don't even commit to the basics, but that has no bearing on the truth of Christianity. All it says is something about their own character. Antony Flew's 'No True Scotsman' fallacy applies only where there is no pre-existing metric. This worked in Flew's case, since there is no standard for 'being a Scot'. Again, like virtually all informal fallacies, its application is limited.

For your last point: That definition is revisionist. It's semantic tomfoolery. That has never been the traditional definition of faith, _ever_. That dichotomy between faith and reason simply doesn't stand, the recent atheist introduction notwithstanding.

"Where in the Quran does it call for a central power?"
Nowhere.  But Sunnah or Hadith are also important books to Islam.  Which is the prophet's words regarding the ideal lifestyle and state.

All of this stuff is pretty non-controversial.  In fact, the view that Islam has nothing to do with a state is what is controversial.  Even if some muslims are not as statist as others.  What you are saying would probably get you beheaded in many countries.

 

 

"Where in the Quran does it call for a central power?"
Nowhere.  But Sunnah or Hadith are also important books to Islam.  Which is the prophet's words regarding the ideal lifestyle and state.

All of this stuff is pretty non-controversial.  In fact, the view that Islam has nothing to do with a state is what is controversial.  Even if some muslims are not as statist as others.  What you are saying would probably get you beheaded in many countries.

I know Quran-only muslims who say that Islam and the Quran are extremely anarchistic and libertarian AND free market. They say that Muhammed was way more libertarian then Jesus and other religious figures.

You still have to explain how interest-less loans are free-market.

 

Malachi - Assuming your arguments are true, why Christianity and not some other religion?

''

Freedom4Me73986:

I know Quran-only muslims who say that Islam and the Quran are extremely anarchistic and libertarian AND free market. They say that Muhammed was way more libertarian then Jesus and other religious figures.

 

The Koran says that Muslim should not be extravagant with money and that men are not to wear gold. Not very Libertarian.

Wheylous:

Malachi - Assuming your arguments are true, why Christianity and not some other religion?

Because Jesus Christ is Lord, of course!

who else would I follow? You see, God is divine, and man is mortal, the only way to have communion with God is through someone who is both God and man.

Gospel of John, ch. 1

 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.  6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.  9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.  14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.  15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

The Koran says that Muslim should not be extravagant with money and that men are not to wear gold. Not very Libertarian.

That doesn't even make sense. First, you don't define what 'extravagant' means, and secondly, libertarianism is not libertinism (not that wearing gold is outlandish, or anything). One can be a consistent libertarian and believe that it is morally wrong to wear gold, so long as the arm of the state is not involved in preventing such an act. Perhaps the Koran says the law ought to be involved in these matters, but your argument failed to demonstrate that. 

 

 

 

''

Freedom4Me73986:

I know Quran-only muslims who say that Islam and the Quran are extremely anarchistic and libertarian AND free market. They say that Muhammed was way more libertarian then Jesus and other religious figures.

 

 

 

The Koran says that Muslim should not be extravagant with money and that men are not to wear gold. Not very Libertarian.

 

That doesn't mean Islam is pro-state. I want you to prove that Islam is anti-anarchist and/or statist.

The Koran says that Sharia law must be the law, does it not?

Ok dude, wherever muslims go, they try to set up sharia law. Sometimes they use the existing state apparatus, sometimes they set up their own state. But look at afghanistan, who, as a nation, is basically as anarchist as somalia. For thousands of years, they have resisted a central government, and what happened when they got rid of the western imperialist state in the 80s? The taliban moved in and set up a state. And, make no mistake, they mean to judge you by their interpretation of islam, not yours.

Christianity was spread by word of mouth, islam was spread by military conquest, i.e. The state. The non-aggression principle is contained in the golden rule, i.e. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" these kinds of ethics are essential to an anarchist society, whereas in practical terms muslims believe they can stick together and cheat unbelievers (this is a cultural observation, aka "stereotype"). There are plenty of secularized muslims who are not suicide bombers or supporters of terrorism, just like there are plenty of so-called Christians who drink and drive, or cheat on their wives. But Christianity doesnt foster military aggression or a police state like islam. The crusades, however flawed they may have been, were defensive wars.

As a former muslim (and strong atheist), I would say that Islam has a lot more libertarian qualities then Christianity in regards to ethics and economics. At the same time, it's a religion, so expect it to contradict itself in these regards.

As a former muslim (and strong atheist), I would say that Islam has a lot more libertarian qualities then Christianity in regards to ethics and economics. 

Exactly.

islam was spread by military conquest, i.e. The state. 

Absolutely false. Most converts to Islam converted VOLUNTARILY. I find nothing wrong w/ voluntary authority.

You obviously know less than nothing about the life of muhammed, the history of the middle east, or islam in general. I suggest you do some research because youre either a troll or laboring under some serious misapprehensions. "most" muslims are BORN into islamic families and live in theocracies where questioning their belief system is met with extreme social disapproval*, physical assault and outlawry*, or mob execution. When "infidels" are tolerated, they are treated as second-class citizens by, you guessed it, the theocratic state. Do I really need to find links to this or can you manage to google islam before you turn into a full-fledged mujahideen?

Edited to add, ok, we are talking about converts. I just woke up. You still seem ignorant of the muslim conquest of the middle east and africa. Islam is spread by violence even today, if I feel generous I will look p some links for you later.

*I am hedging my bets here. i know for a fact that in a strict sense, islam does not permit the apostate to live. I do not know how often this is enforced and in which countries.