Is Islam Compatible With Western Values?

[Shia Islam]

Is Islam able to integrate into Europe, Canada, Australia etc, seamlessly? By the way, I'm not talking about the westernised Muslims here, the ones who know a few Qur'anic ayat and not much else. I mean are the values that the Qur'an, Shariah, etc. promote, compatible with Western Values?

The Same question is also applied to the followers of the other religions...

Just read the bible to see whether it is compatible with the Western Values or not...

When it comes to Islam, I myself don't encourage Muslims to live in non-Muslim communities...

We Muslims have our own values and culture..

On the other hand, many Muslims can't live in their own countries...

Western governments had played big roles in the current unbearable situations in many Muslim countries...

First there was the colonization...
And then they installed puppets before leaving these countries...

Also, they played a big role in creating the Palestinian crisis...

What is important though, is that the west need not to look to Islam as a ONE big bunch...

There are many moderate Muslim groups..

 

[Augustus]

Is Islam able to integrate into Europe, Canada, Australia etc, seamlessly? By the way, I'm not talking about the westernised Muslims here, the ones who know a few Qur'anic ayat and not much else. I mean are the values that the Qur'an, Shariah, etc. promote, compatible with Western Values?

It depends what you are talking about.

Can individual Muslims integrate in the West and live lives that are considered 'acceptable' by 'Western standards' while remaining pious and true to their religion? Yes, of course.

Are there some forms of Islam that can prevent this? yes

Is normative 'Classical Islam' [if there is such a thing] as a whole compatible with Western Values? No. There is no concept of the secular (something which came from Christianity), it is not based around the unalienable rights of the individual, and the economic system is based on idea that are forbidden under the sharia.

Am not sure if any 2 values systems are totally compatible anyway, some more or less so than others though.

I'm also not so sure how compatible many Westerners and their governments are with normative 'Western Values' either though. I'm not even sure what 'Western Values' are anyway. Do these include intrinsic supremacism, aggressive expansion, the commoditisation of all areas of life, etc?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm not really sure how "Western values" is defined really. All I'm seeing is that there are tons of controversies in the West in right about everything. I can't see a moral that is really considered a moral. I'm not saying that the West is immoral, I'm just confused in it.

Westernized Islam? Islam is Islam. No matter what, no Muslims ever apply the Quran perfectly, at least these days. Individual Muslims every where have different application of Islam.

 

[Sunstone]

What would not integrating mean to you? Would it be Muslims sending their children to Islamic shools, women wearing the niqab or burka, I'm not quite sure sorry

To the extent any group sends their kids to a school designed to "protect" them from Western values while instilling in them other values -- well, that's not assimilation.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not really sure how "Western values" is defined really.

I think of the UN Declaration of Human Rights to be largely a reflection of Western values.

If one wanted, one could define Western values as "any and all values held by any and all Westerners", but that sort of definition would not appear on the face of it to be very useful. For instance, some Westerners value ethnic, social, or religious chauvinism, but valuing any of those things is by no means unique to Westerners -- there are chauvinists in every culture and society on earth. Consequently, defining Western values to include chauvinism is pretty much useless in distinguishing Western values from more universal values.

I am tentatively inclined to seek an historical definition of Western values, rather than a purely cultural one. So, for instance, I note the rather peculiar way and extent to which the Enlightenment intellectuals applied rationality to laws, traditions, etc, and I infer from that observation that the intellectuals valued rationality in a somewhat new way.

 

[Agnostic Religiophile]

Well I've found some things people believe to be Western values (on Google, I know :/), they were individualism, secularism and freedom of religion, democracy and in some cases capitalism

Is mainstream Islam individualistic? I don't think so, it's much more community based I believe

Is mainstream Islam secular? Nope

Is freedom of religion a mainstream Islamic value? Largely not

Is mainstream Islam democractic? That's a tough one, it's not opposed to democracy per se but I'll go with no if we mean a complete democracy

Does Islam value capitalism? Again that's tough, I hear that it's neither capitalism nor socialism but I believe this is largely from anti-western sentiment, I don't really believe Islam has an economic system apart from a ban on usury and hoarding in an ideal Islamic state. I wouldn't describe it as right-wing at all but I think it's too hard to answer as capitalism is very broad and depends how we define it. Also Islamic scholars are split on intervention in the market by the state

Also no practising Muslim should prefer Western values over Islamic values, obviously

So... Nope. But people will probably use this as evidence why "Muslims hate the West and want 'Sharia law' in Europe" *sigh*

If by compatible we mean can Muslims live in a non-Islamic state and perform their religious duties while not getting in the way of others, then I'd say say to that

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think of the UN Declaration of Human Rights to be largely a reflection of Western values.

If one wanted, one could define Western values as "any and all values held by any and all Westerners", but that sort of definition would not appear on the face of it to be very useful. For instance, some Westerners value ethnic, social, or religious chauvinism, but valuing any of those things is by no means unique to Westerners -- there are chauvinists in every culture and society on earth. Consequently, defining Western values to include chauvinism is pretty much useless in distinguishing Western values from more universal values.

I am tentatively inclined to seek an historical definition of Western values, rather than a purely cultural one. So, for instance, I note the rather peculiar way and extent to which the Enlightenment intellectuals applied rationality to laws, traditions, etc, and I infer from that observation that the intellectuals valued rationality in a somewhat new way.

Does that mean that there is no such a concrete and dependable thing as "Western values"? I think to have a "value", it has to at least give some kinda a semi universal feel of being followed, otherwise it would just be a "thing" for individuals or so many different groups of "strangers to each other" who happen to share the same thought by chance in the same culture (?!). Could it be that the heavy and vast diversity is giving me such confusion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does that mean that there is no such a concrete and dependable thing as "Western values"?

Our modern values tend to be very heavily based on Enlightenment-era thinkers. Our freedom of speech, association, and religion, our right to self-determination and choose our own path in life, and even equality of the sexes, we may invoke long-dead philosophers for such things, but those are our values and where a significant portion of them come from.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Our modern values tend to be very heavily based on Enlightenment-era thinkers. Our freedom of speech, association, and religion, our right to self-determination and choose our own path in life, and even equality of the sexes, we may invoke long-dead philosophers for such things, but those are our values and where a significant portion of them come from.

Yes, it is just that the heavy diversity, let's say in equality of sexes for example, really confuses me in having it called a value. An example value in Islam could help here. Let's see, strong positive family relationships I can easily say it is an Islamic value since it is the norm and a major practice in Islam. If we compare its case with the equality of sexes in the West, for example, we will see that the latter can easily have disagreements in having equality different Westerns see.

Or maybe I'm confusing the meaning of the word "value"?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Does that mean that there is no such a concrete and dependable thing as "Western values"? I think to have a "value", it has to at least give some kinda a semi universal feel of being followed, otherwise it would just be a "thing" for individuals or so many different groups of "strangers to each other" who happen to share the same thought by chance in the same culture (?!). Could it be that the heavy and vast diversity is giving me such confusion?

I think a lot of value can be drawn from simple truths once can agree simple truths the premise creates a "value" one then applies a the value to RL and if it works for all then , hey presto you have a "value"
One first needs a premise all can agree before can even suggest "value"
Can be put in short to save time.
Value another's life as if was your own , through the logic and reason of the law as described by Jesus

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't particularly like the use of expressions such as "Western values".

I suppose we have to address the constrasting values somehow, but it is IMO misleading to name them in such a way as to imply that they are or should be:

a) Geographically conditioned;

b) Fairly static, by either design or circunstance;

c) Fairly homogeneous among the literal dozens of politically autonomous countries that are being described.


All three qualities are arguable at best, and perhaps none of them is even desirable.

It seems to me that ultimately whether the values themselves clash is a secondary concern, the primary one being how that clash can and should be handled.


Establishing geographic and political boundaries to be rule by one set of values or the other seem to be the most traditional attempt at a solution, but also one that I find inherently flawed and perhaps outright obsolete. Avoiding and restricting contact between communities is an avoidance tactic, not a resolution proper.

Instead, we should attempt to attain mutual understanding, preferably by reciprocal and mutually agreed exchanges of migrants on a limited, experimental and reversible scale. That may very well be the solution in and of itself, as word of each side spreads to the other, and both decide what to learn and adopt from the other.

Odds are that both sides will be surprised by the results to some extent, but that is not something to fear, but rather to look forward to.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think a lot of value can be drawn from simple truths once can agree simple truths the premise creates a "value" one then applies a the value to RL and if it works for all then , hey presto you have a "value"
One first needs a premise all can agree before can even suggest "value"
Can be put in short to save time.
Value another's life as if was your own , through the logic and reason of the law as described by Jesus

As for me, I believe a value has to be agreed on by the majority, believed to be beneficial and positive, and followed out of strong sense of obligation. One also does not have to like a value as much as seeing the three I just mentioned in it.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

As for me, I believe a value has to be agreed on by the majority, believed to be beneficial and positive, and followed out of strong sense of obligation. One also does not have to like a value as much as seeing the three I just mentioned in it.

The premise for the "value" conclusion must apply to all .
You want we can set a premise to create a value and what value means quality of life , value of life in eyes of God , real or not God is prerequisite to create "value" is little tiny value in universe without God .
A simple premise , no matter what colour you are or tongue or religion I think something everyone in world could agree A arrow in the eye is no fun for the receiver ? Is nothing of positive value to the reciever he doesn't benefit but suffers
Everyone in world will agree , why ? Simple because it hurts causes suffering creating negatives value for the victim .
So to maintain values we agree not to aim for the eye .
Can create premise after premise until can fine tune until you have laws , then applies to all.
Not saying I want to shoot arrows at anyone , but we all can agree as simple premise is not nice

 

[LuisDantas]

Going wild for a bit, maybe a "value" is best defined by how much enthusiasm and willingness to renounce other things in order to further its development people have.

I like that definition, because I think it is more accurate and realistic than some alternatives that I met.

Values are ultimately individual, although it is certainly advisable to communicate and discuss them with others often and openly.

If one accepts that definition of "value", it would seem to me that disagreement of values are best dealt with not by applying laws (which are in fact oppression lent prestige) or even by accepting the majority view, but rather by sincere efforts to openly express and balance our conflicting desires to the best of our abilities.

That way agreement will not always come, but mutual understanding and respect may very often result, and that is probably better still.


Edited to add: Therefore, I have come to realize that I do not particularly care for protecting or restriciting either "western values", "Islamic" values or any other set of values. Instead I would rather understand them and decide whether I want to lend them any support, and how much.

Values can and must change even within a decade. And that is a good thing.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Going wild for a bit, maybe a "value" is best defined by how much enthusiasm and willingness to renounce other things in order to further its development people have.

I like that definition, because I think it is more accurate and realistic than some alternatives that I met.

Values are ultimately individual, although it is certainly advisable to communicate and discuss them with others often and openly.

If one accepts that definition of "value", it would seem to me that disagreement of values are best dealt with not by applying laws (which are in fact oppression lent prestige) or even by accepting the majority view, but rather by sincere efforts to openly express and balance our conflicting desires to the best of our abilities.

That way agreement will not always come, but mutual understanding and respect may very often result, and that is probably better still.

Values control basic natural instincts and must apply to all
Universal values for billions of individuals , the law cannot be individual , must think as group.

 

[LuisDantas]

Values control basic natural instincts and must apply to all
Universal values for billions of individuals , the law cannot be individual , must think as group.

Even leaving aside that laws and values are fairly independent things, I am not sure what you mean here.

There is substantial variation in the understanding of values, so in which sense are they universal?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Even leaving aside that laws and values are fairly independent things, I am not sure what you mean here.

There is substantial variation in the understanding of values, so in which sense are they universal?

Is basic values for all then are also ideals .
In England we use Values to create the law is fact they are the essense of the law .
Without moral values we cannot create just laws.
Without moral values there is no crime .

 

[LuisDantas]

Is basic values for all then are also ideals .
In England we use Values to create the law is fact they are the essense of the law .

It was my understanding that the OP asked about actual, existing, manifest values as opposed to laws (which are just political tools) or abstract ideals (which are not manifest, nor vulnerable to human activities).

Without moral values we cannot create just laws.

True, but besides the point.

Laws are never "just", simple as that.

They are not capable of leading to fairness or justice, because their very nature makes them oppressive and political.

The closest they can come to being fair or just is if they somehow happen to be in nearly no conflict with anyone's personal values - which is to say, if they are redundant and useless.

 

[McBell]

Is Islam able to integrate into Europe, Canada, Australia etc, seamlessly? By the way, I'm not talking about the westernised Muslims here, the ones who know a few Qur'anic ayat and not much else. I mean are the values that the Qur'an, Shariah, etc. promote, compatible with Western Values?

Which Western values?
I ask because said values can change dramatically depending upon where in the "West" you are.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

It was my understanding that the OP asked about actual, existing, manifest values as opposed to laws (which are just political tools) or abstract ideals (which are not manifest, nor vulnerable to human activities).


True, but besides the point.

Laws are never "just", simple as that.

They are not capable of leading to fairness or justice, because their very nature makes them oppressive and political.

The closest they can come to being fair or just is if they somehow happen to be in nearly no conflict with anyone's personal values - which is to say, if they are redundant and useless.

Was basic understanding was criminal law no company or civil law just basic thou shalt not kill laws
Thou shalt not rape
Without moral value is no crime