@andreas @CreamSeparatist @matrix
"Freedom" to infringe upon another individual's rights isn't freedom. The "freedom of monarchs" is an oxymoron, because monarchs infringe upon the freedom of those they rule merely by existing. What "freedom" are Muslims attempting to exercise that comes at the expense of another's freedom? None of them are "freedom", they're all attempts to justify their barbaric and oppressive religious practices under the guise of "religious freedom". When you're interacting with another person or group of people, your "freedom" doesn't override their freedom or their rights. You can't do whatever you want to them, because that's infringing upon their autonomy. All of the cases you've mentioned are simply an oppressive person or people attempting to infringe upon other people's rights and claiming it's their "freedom".
When your actions involve yourself and your property, and only yourself and your property, you have absolute freedom to do whatever you want. Likewise, so long as everyone involved consents to whatever it is you're doing, a group of people have freedom to do whatever they want among themselves with their property. "No," says the monarch, "you must not do things I do not approve of, and you must surrender your property to me." "No," says the Muslim (or Christian, or Jew, or any other religion), "your actions offend my God, and your life is forfeit." It is in no way oppressive to exercise your rights and freedoms when no one else is involved, or when everyone involved consents to it. That is the basis of Libertarian freedom. Anyone claiming to somehow be "oppressed" by two consenting adults doing something that doesn't involve them is, to put it bluntly, a fucking idiot.