• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Islam and Western Society

The thing is, those things you find in Christian culture (historically) are the kinds of things you find in Judaism and Islam as well.  Do not kill, do not steal etc etc.

Western Culture is influence by Judao-Christian values but many of those stem from Greco-Roman values, ethics and laws.

Religious freedom is something the Romans had (at least in the later empire), well before the 1700-1800's.  After the fall of Rome and before the Renaissance (and arguably before the industrial revolution) you would find many "cultural" values similar to what some Islamist Fundamentalist cultures have.  Stonings, burning women, the non faithful, killing pagans and overall intolerance to everything non-christian (or deviating from various christian sects).  It was actually institutionalised as well.

I would say most of our values come from the anglo concept of individual rights and freedoms which was propogated by the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism, not so much christian values per se but a seperation from them (or at least from the catholic church).
 
It is a real concern, the Arabs have funded the mosques. Forcing everyone to behave by their standards. I have always felt the prophet was attempting to modernize the Arabs of the day, his wife trading company would have allowed him to see the benefits of monotheism and a broader legal structure that existed for the Jews and Christians living in Arabia and the M.E. In fact he codified the first set of laws protecting Arabian women rights among other aspects. The reality the Arabs wish to ignore was that until Muhammad came along, they were the savages and  were latecomers to believing in one god/Allah. 
 
Jed said:
Western laws and our culture are based on Christian values and ethics. Granted our society is currently a whole lot more secular, but we still are  basically Christian ethics and culture based.

Sharia law will not cut it here. A quiet push for a world Caliphate will not cut it here.

I agree with you there is no need to get hot and bothered about Islam, but we do not want to ignore it or appease the extremist propagation ala Britain and France, either.

Roger. We are on net.

We should not appease extremist Islamists, any more than we should appease or empower any other religious extremists, of any denomination. They are usually nasty, narrow-minded oppressive people who thrive on ignorance and fear-mongering. This IMHO is why all of them, regardless of who they claim to worship, all equally hate (AKA "fear") civil rights, education, free media, science and secular society. But what they fear more than anything are critical thinkers.

Let people worship toasters, for all I care. Build the biggest temple you want. Wear pointy hats with flashing lights on them. Just behave yourselves and be productive citizens, and adapt yourselves sufficiently to our culture that you don't become a public nuisance. That's all.
 
This is an interesting debate. The topic is "Islam is/ is not a peaceful religion"-

https://www.youtube.com/user/OxfordUnion

The funny thing is that even in a forum such as the Oxford Union, it is the supporters of Islam who are more animated. I'd like to see this debate happen in an Islamic state. Am I thinking about public stoning, or hands (in this case tongue) being chopped off....? Oh, that is so naive of me - of course Islam doesn't support these barbaric acts ;D.
 
Allgunzblazing said:
This is an interesting debate. The topic is "Islam is/ is not a peaceful religion"-

https://www.youtube.com/user/OxfordUnion

The funny thing is that even in a forum such as the Oxford Union, it is the supporters of Islam who are more animated. I'd like to see this debate happen in an Islamic state. Am I thinking about public stoning, or hands (in this case tongue) being chopped off....? Oh, that is so naive of me - of course Islam doesn't support these barbaric acts ;D.

You raise a good point here, by referring to these kinds of punishments. Actions like these, and things like dunking, burning, racking, and other joys of the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, the anti-Popery zealots, etc were once features of the Christian religion (or, at least, the way people in certain times and places lived out the Christian religion...).

But these actions have long ago faded into history as far as Christianity is concerned. Today, nobody will be imprisoned, hung, or drawn and quartered for publishing rude cartoons about the Pope. But, once upon a time, these were possible outcomes. Not now. Christianity has generally evolved.

So, here's my question: how much of the violent extremist behaviour we see in Islamic societies is due to the fact that Islam has lots of "growing up" to do? After all, it's at least 400 years younger than Christianity. Is this just an evolutionary phase (albeit a nasty and destructive one)? Can Islam evolve away from this behaviour?
 
"Time to grow" expectations should be relative to the era.  As it happens, improvements in degrees of enlightenment - increasing respect for people - are rapid these days, and the pace and completeness of distribution of information are also impressive.  There is no excuse for being unable to evolve in one generation, or perhaps two, no differently than the cultural shift seen in immigrant families.
 
Sadly, the use of communications technology is a two edged sword (check out the Syrian hacking of US sites), and can only suppliment traditional strategies, not replace them (see the fate of the "Green" revolution in Iran).

Looking at events like the Arab Spring or the radicalization of second generation immigrents in the West, I would bet quite heavily on culture as the defining factor. The fact that *we* generally work to undermine our own culture leaves immegrents rootless and easy prey for radicalization, since that offers them a firm grounding and coherent world veiw (even if this is a view *we* find abhorrent).

Many of the observations offered here show that Islam is (like other religions) quite adaptable and can flourish in other cultural environments. I also suspect that many Wahhabi Imans recognize this and the growth of Wahhabi funded madrasas and mosques around the world in an attempt to impose their culture on Muslims outside of the Arab world.
 
Thucydides said:
Many of the observations offered here show that Islam is (like other religions) quite adaptable and can flourish in other cultural environments. I also suspect that many Wahhabi Imans recognize this and the growth of Wahhabi funded madrasas and mosques around the world in an attempt to impose their culture on Muslims outside of the Arab world.

I have a slightly different thought. I think that the last thing that any of these Islamist zealots and demagogues want to see is Muslims living happy, peaceful and productive lives in "infidel" countries. The fact that thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Canadian and US Muslims pursue their religion undisturbed, with only a modicum of reasonable cultural adaptation, must both frighten and infuriate them.

I bet that these loonies jump for joy every time some mouth-breather in Canada burns a mosque, or throws pig blood on a mosque, or otherwise wallows around down at their level of stupidity. Then they can say to their "brethren" in Canada: "Look, you fools! We told you that Muslims can't live with these infidel scum! They hate you and they want to destroy Islam, and you and your families along with! So smarten up and get on the jihad bus!"
 
pbi said:
I have a slightly different thought. I think that the last thing that any of these Islamist zealots and demagogues want to see is Muslims living happy, peaceful and productive lives in "infidel" countries. The fact that thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Canadian and US Muslims pursue their religion undisturbed, with only a modicum of reasonable cultural adaptation, must both frighten and infuriate them.

I bet that these loonies jump for joy every time some mouth-breather in Canada burns a mosque, or throws pig blood on a mosque, or otherwise wallows around down at their level of stupidity. Then they can say to their "brethren" in Canada: "Look, you fools! We told you that Muslims can't live with these infidel scum! They hate you and they want to destroy Islam, and you and your families along with! So smarten up and get on the jihad bus!"

I bet they do to. I also bet they jump for joy when some troubled and misguided soul in the western world converts, joins Islam, becomes radicalized and heads off to Syria, Afghanistan, etc. to fight the good fight. Kind of like troubled people joining up in a Jim Jones cult, or Hari Krishna or a Waco Texas enclave.
 
Jed said:
I bet they do to. I also bet they jump for joy when some troubled and misguided soul in the western world converts, joins Islam, becomes radicalized and heads off to Syria, Afghanistan, etc. to fight the good fight. Kind of like troubled people joining up in a Jim Jones cult, or Hari Krishna or a Waco Texas enclave.

Actually, probably exactly the same kind of people.

"Why are you here with us, Jihad Brother Dwayne?"

"Ummmmm....because....there was nothing good on TV?
 
One of the archetypes of the western-convert-to-Islam is a person lacking structure and purpose.  But in the end, Islam has too much structure and purpose compared to what several other cultures offer.  A little bit of freedom is a strong solvent.
 
Brad Sallows said:
One of the archetypes of the western-convert-to-Islam is a person lacking structure and purpose.  But in the end, Islam has too much structure and purpose compared to what several other cultures offer.  A little bit of freedom is a strong solvent.

Traditional Western culture was designed around providing structure and purpose to people, either formally through various forms of schooling and vocational education, and informally through practices like sons going into their father's line of work or the formation and maintenance of the "small platoons" and associations like Church congregations and the Rotary Club that bound neighbourhoods and neighbours together. I would argue that the erosion of these formal and informal linkages provide the holes for people lacking in structure and purpose to be created in the first place. (Why this has happened is a different story, and the subject of a different thread(s))

This is also the argument that has been expressed upthread about the decline of the "Christian" basis of our society and culture, although like Edward, I would argue that Western culture has very deep roots that go back to Classical Greece, the Res Publica Roma,  ancient Judaism and early Christianity.
 
Sheema Khan, (PhD, Harvard) former Chair of CAIR-CAN, and periodic Globe and Mail op-ed writer, offers a Muslim perspective in this column whch is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/reconciling-muslim-practices-with-western-principles/article14157485/#dashboard/follows/Authors
gam-masthead.png

Reconciling Muslim practices with Western principles

SHEEMA KHAN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Sep. 06 2013

An incredible amount of ink has been spent on the reaction to the proposed Charter of Quebec Values, considering that the document itself remains veiled to the wider public.

For those wishing to brush up on laïcité, John Bowen’s Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves provides an excellent analysis of the distinctively French view of the separation between church and state. According to Mr. Bowen, laïcité is a French tradition that began in 1905 when the Roman Catholic church was officially removed from France’s educational system and a greater part of public life.

The distinction between laïcité and secularism is partly due to the different philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. According to Rousseau, the individual gains freedom through the state, which has the right to regulate the public sphere of religion. On the other hand, Locke placed freedom of conscience as the cornerstone of individual rights, which guarantees freedom from the state. These opposing views have permeated societies with French and British roots.

After having undergone a revolution far more quiet than that of their French counterparts, Quebeckers have embarked on a long overdue debate on their own definition of laïcité. It will be shaped by cultural heritage, linguistic identity and the contemporary reality of living in a fully anglicized North American milieu shaped by Lockean roots.

The past decade witnessed a similar vigorous debate in France. “Conspicuous” religious symbols were prohibited in public schools in 2004; face coverings were banned in public spaces in 2010. Many French Muslim leaders came out in favour of discouraging the face veil, citing the incompatibility of a non-obligatory practice with the French tradition of laïcité. It also marked a maturation of Europe’s largest Muslim minority by adapting to the historical and social realities of France – rather than importing those of the Middle East or North Africa. Such an approach provides a valuable paradigm for Muslim communities that seek to integrate into the wider Western fabric, while remaining true to overarching Islamic principles.

Often, Muslims chafe at monolithic characterizations of their faith. Yet they sometimes do the very same by insisting that Islam should be practised in a uniform manner, regardless of place and time. For example, some will insist that there is only one way to dress modestly. Yet Islamic civilization always took into account local culture and changing circumstances, resulting in cultural tones and variations that are readily apparent in diverse Muslim populations throughout the world.

Some argue that Islamic radicalization is culturally predatory since it seeks to undercut indigenous culture by imposing an exogenous practice, as evidenced in Somalia and Mali. While Muslim communities do not have such a narrow agenda, they have often failed to examine local history and culture in a meaningful way.

As a result, some have inadvertently harmed community development by importing foreign cultural practices that have little relevance to local context. Take, for example, the influx during the 1970s and ’80s of foreign preachers and imams into Canada who told Muslims not to vote, since Western governments were un-Islamic. This strategy only served to marginalize Muslims from civic engagement, and delayed the development of civic and political leadership.

Muslim communities must realize that their home is here, and that it will take great effort to develop Islamic practice that has a Canadian tone, with regional variations. This implies ceasing blind importation of overseas cultural practices, or consultation of overseas imams who have no desire to understand Western cultural context.

Institutions should reflect local best practices, where discourse, debate and inclusion of stakeholders set the tone. Currently, most Muslim institutions are replicas of their foreign counterparts, with a top-down approach in which the voices of women and youth are often absent.

We need intelligent, dispassionate discussions of how Western principles, such as gender equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and critical inquiry, meld with overarching Islamic principles.

Civic engagement will also be paramount for future integration, as Muslims participate in wider policy issues, such as the environment, energy security, aboriginal self-assertion and, yes, Quebec identity.

In classical Islamic thought, the overriding principle of the faith was understood to be mercy. It was manifest by the intent to do good to others, to bring benefit to the wider society and to prevent harm. It is a principle worth resurrecting as Muslims establish roots here.


Dr Khan reminds us of two important points:

    1. Neither the West nor Islam are monolithic ~ the cultural traditions of the West, she reminds us, rest on bases separated by liberal (Locke) and illiberal Rousseau foundations; and

    2. Many, many Muslim leaders are trying to replicate foreign cultural artifacts rather than build authentic Muslim-Canadian ones.

 
There is the "imported cultural artifacts" and the imposed one. The Article is deafeningly silent on the rampant "Whabbization" of the Islamic world (Debondization in other parts such as Afghanistan, both have a historical relation) This forced belief is being imposed on Islamic societies and suppresses the local flavours either through exclusion and all the way to torture and death. We need to recognize the true enemy is the Whabbists/ fundamentals Islamists  and deem them as unwanted and unwelcome. This protects the non-Muslim society and the Muslim society here from real threats. 
 
Colin P said:
There is the "imported cultural artifacts" and the imposed one. The Article is deafeningly silent on the rampant "Whabbization" of the Islamic world (Debondization in other parts such as Afghanistan, both have a historical relation) This forced belief is being imposed on Islamic societies and suppresses the local flavours either through exclusion and all the way to torture and death. We need to recognize the true enemy is the Whabbists/ fundamentals Islamists  and deem them as unwanted and unwelcome. This protects the non-Muslim society and the Muslim society here from real threats.


Agreed, and we need to focus on the source of that "Whabbization"~ Saudi Arabian money which does not get spent, in my opinion, without the approval of the Saudi royal family.

Saudi Arabia is not a friend to the West, nor is it a friend to Asian Muslims. It is one of two bitter enemies in a 1,400 year old war - the other being Iran - and it would like us to take its side in that war, something that would be a major strategic blunder.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Agreed, and we need to focus on the source of that "Whabbization"~ Saudi Arabian money which does not get spent, in my opinion, without the approval of the Saudi royal family.

Saudi Arabia is not a friend to the West, nor is it a friend to Asian Muslims. It is one of two bitter enemies in a 1,400 year old war - the other being Iran - and it would like us to take its side in that war, something that would be a major strategic blunder.

And KSA is America's friend...
 
Slightly  :off topic: but this item from CBC News illustrates:

    1. The very real perceptual problem many (most?) Muslims have when dealing with ordinary Canadians; and

    2. The reason that no one in QC is standing, strongly, against the PQ's Charter of Values, which seeks to enshrine la laïcité in the Québec Constitution.

Geneviève Caron and Claude Pineault are representative of, at least, a very large minority of Quebecers ... maybe even a majority. They, and people like them, can swing the results of both provincial and federal elections.

 
"Moderate Muslims" will receive far more popular support when they demonstrate against terrorism (a nice "Our religion does not support the 09/11 attacks" nationwide rally) as opposed to rushing out of mosques call for "Death to Infidels" over some cartoons of Mohammed.


Matthew.
 
National Post

Muslim group demands apology from Stephen Harper and spokesman Jason MacDonald for ‘smear’ linking organization to Hamas

OTTAWA — A major Canadian Muslim group is demanding an apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his chief spokesman for a comment it says linked the organization to a terrorist group.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims has filed a notice of libel in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that accuses Jason MacDonald of acting maliciously when he made the comment earlier this month.

The council had criticized the inclusion of a controversial rabbi in Harper’s delegation that went to the Middle East last week.

“Rather than responding to our legitimate concerns, the PMO’s director of communications attacked us and attempted to smear our name by claiming NCCM had ‘documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas,”’ Ihsaan Gardee, the council’s executive director, told a news conference Tuesday.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. NCCM will not let the PMO’s false statement stand.”

The council says MacDonald’s comment was a deliberate attempt to discredit the group and Harper is responsible for the words uttered by his spokesman.

(...)
 
NCCM was originally a part of the Council on American-Islamic Relations which was directly linked to fund raising efforts for Hamas.  A quick check of the name on Google reveals numerous articles suggesting the linkage between CAIM and Hamas and providing some although not necessarily sufficient evidence to back it up.  Now, does a change in name mean a change in Heart?  I don't believe that they really expect the suit to go anywhere.  They just want to embarrass those named and demonstrate that words against Mohammad will always have consequences.  When they talk about freedom of religion it means that everyone must be free to chose Islam (only). 
 
Back
Top