int

​ Apokatastasian !

///JustinHerchel    the prime tenet of classical liberalism is that the individual will is supreme, so long as it does not impinge on otheres.    also that we own ourselves, not god or religion or family etc...
///
> Individual will is supreme? That sounds more like a Promethean individualistic/voluntaristic humanism or libertarianism than classical liberalism. Classical liberalism includes the social contract, which is exactly what Mohammed Hijab is talking throughout this (full) video.



///If you behave some way because you fear retribution from men or gods,   thats not ethics,  thats subserviance, appeasement....it's the opposite of ethics.    Fear negates ethics.   This is why it's horrifying.///
> You clearly have no clue what ethics is. Virtue ethics is not the only theory in metaethics.


///look either god is real and wrote your magic book,  and commanded death to people who leave islam or it's not.    If it's true, then why do you need the justification under liberalism? (which is at best the collective will of free men, and on it's face denies the primacy of god),   you show your lack of faith in the supremacy of your god's will, by even appealling to liberalism for justification.   A deliberate twisting of liberalism, used for this purpose, just seems goofy and desperate.
///
> I don't need the justification of liberalism. You need the justification of liberalism to say 'Islam bad because apostasy law', and what I'm doing is using your logic against itself - if one can justify apostasy even under the classical liberal paradigm, then what intellectual basis will you have for talking sh^t against Islam? God is real, and He didn't 'write books', He revealed them to people, and didn't command death penalty to people who leave Islam. That shows how ignorant you are of the Quran, and that itself should have ended the debate for you.


///Furthermore, in my opinion,  punishing someone for a private religious decision is unethical,  and I dare you to argue that liberalism supports this, without sounding like a moron.///
> No, but Islam doesn't punish people for private religious matters either.


///Who's will exactly does apostasy frustrate?   Only gods (So you say, absent any proof at all except one medieval poetry book. I personally would more be inclined to believe  it was divine, if it told people to wash their hands, for example,  or not to mutilate genitals, but alas )
///
> Apostasy doesn't frustrate God, if He had wanted we would all have thought in the same way, and would have no free will whatsoever. However, apostasy is the way to fitna (societal collapse and corruption) and rebellion, and that as such (fitna) is strongly condemned in the Quran, where it is considered to be a heavier sin than murder. Hell, you can see even today how murtads (apostates from Islam) are used as proxy warriors from the enemies of Islam, and as such, they are utilized as justification for wagining unjust wars, killing civilians and disrupting social order (Iraq, Iran - some examples). This only shows that Islam is right about fitna.


///Locke simply acknowledging that apostasy exists, is not even close to an actual argument supporting  apostasy laws, i mean this should be obvious..
///
> You aren't very bright, are you?


///The idea that god would want coerced worship borne of fear, is foul and debased as well, and if you believe in a god so petty and still adore him,   i pity you
///
> God doesn't want coerced worship, but God wants the best for our society. And though apostasy laws make no sense if they are applied outside of their natural habitat (sharia state/caliphate), they are an important component of it, and can be justified even using classical liberalism. So what's the next move, ignoramus person?