Islam and the West ~ Finding Common Ground (the Non-DIR thread)

[Iman]

my question still stands, once you have an Islamic state is it that Islamic states duty to resist non Islamic change by the majority? In other words once in, is it possible to get it out by a democratic process?

I'm afraid you miss al least two major points by posing this question again. First, the ideological worldview that each nation shares amongst its people is not represented by a single government, administration, or stream of thought. It is a constitutional framework that includes many layers and possibilities , similar to any constitution adopted in the modern world. The governments to be elected must work within that framework. Some administrations will be progressive, more secularized than others but they all need to work within that framework that defines the national identity of that nation. Second, the will of the majority and the movement of history cannot be defined by a list of rules. Any number of givens can change in response to emerging needs, views, and circumstances that mandate such change. It happened before in Turkey and to an extent in many other parts of the Middle East, but now the majority want to reclaim their cultural identity and their own Muslim voice that has been marginalized for long. Turkey, which adopts a strictly secular code of governance, has stepped on many human rights and freedoms of people of faith, but is now begining to peacefully change in response to the calls of the Turkish masses. Although I favor a more Islamic inspired system in the Middle East, I am thankful that the return of Islam to the center of Middle East governance is slow and gradual. This is good because it allows for further maturity of thought and vision that is still needed to estabish a well balanced system that incorporates democracy( or Shura) and evolved views of justice and human rights. The difference between positive responsive change and forced change is IMO a difference between change from within and change that is coming from the outside. When the need for change is strong enough, people become ready to sacrifice for it. All great accomplishments in the west and indeed worldwide costed great sacrifices.

 

[Aquitaine]

Of course we're compatable with one-another on an individual level, I mean, we're all Humans at the end of the day. However, religion, culture and politics separates us to the point where we're pretty incompatable (in terms of living together).

Both sides constantly misrepresent/misinterpret each other's veiws, and it's all too easy for us to stereotype and generalize one another.

In my opinion, the best we can do is simply see each other as ordinary people, and not enemies, via eliminating generalizations, understanding people 1 on 1, and by not letting the media try to stir up tensions.

However as I said, unfortunately I doubt we could co-exist together, we each have enough trouble as it is co-existing with our "faction" - Muslim vs Muslim, Westerner vs Westerner, let alone opposite "factions".

Still it doesn't mean we can't talk to and like one-another

 

[maro]

The problem is maybe more muslims should learn about Islam and then we in the west ould actually see the Islam that you espouse. Its a difficult task indeed to attempt to learn what is the "true islam" when Muslims themselves seem have such difficulty in doing so[/quote]

I think the thread's name was "islam" and the west..and not "muslims" and the west.....and that's why i talked about al shura which is not applied and the scientific approach which is not embraced practically among muslims

Islam as an ideology and way of life achieved a lot for 1300 prosperous years...so ,if you want to judge it by the state of its followers...no one can blame you....but in order to be fair...you have to look through the entire islamic history collectively ,not only the past 100 years of deterioration

Also , i would argue that in order to be fair ,one has to judge the picture from all its angles....so ,i would suggest that beside listening to the news about what the extremeist muslims have exploded here and there...and how women are beaten to wear what the media calls 'burka'...it's not a bad idea ,to learn about the daily routine of an average moderate muslim in Egypt ,morocco or turkey...the current challenges they are facing and how they are dealing with it

honestly , i don't think you need to wait for more muslims to learn about islam in order for you to learn about it....it might be a very difficult task for you...but apparently it wasn't for many other westerners who managed to learn and have a positive attitude about the religion....some of them even converted

Its my knowledge of Islam that leads me to beleive its incompatible with the west, i am still open to persuasion though.

I think it's your knowledge about Taliban ,probably..that makes you believe so
I am not up to persuade you,honestly.....you are entitled to your opinion....i just want to point out that "generalizing" statments like X is not compatible with Y are very likely to be false....especially if (x) and (y) are complex entities

I don't belive that "islam" is 100% compatible with the west either ,if that was your point...nor do i believe that there is zero compatibility...i believe that there is some compatibility.

I have indeed and i come to the conclusion that Shura is seeking council or consultation and is not a democracy where in theory the majority could vote for something un islamic,the shura in Islam is for seeking opinion and not for ruling. This is contrary to the parliamentary system in democracy.

The shura is certainly for ruling...the turn over of the rulers and the parliamenatry system are two things that we agree upon

seeking council is only one aspect of a wider definition of the shura as interpreted by many modern scholars

I think most westerners beleive its up to the woman what she wears, the current tendency to interfere with this is worrying

Interfering with the woman's right to wear what she wants is worrying ,indeed....but whay do we often hear about those who force the women to cover ,and not about those who force them to expose themselves ?

I haven't seen enough protest from the freedom- loving westerners to the forcing of women to take their hijab off in Turkey ,Tunisia ,France...and their niqab off in many other countires

Please tell me Maro can a sharia based administration allow itself to be voted out in favour of a non Islamic administration if the majority wishes it. this is the crux of the matter when considering the compatibility with democracies

I think iman did a very good job answering this...but my direct answer is ' yes '

 

[maro]

Based on my imperfect understanding of Islam, Kai, I am inclined to agree with you here. Personally, I do not see how Islam can be made compatible with "the West" and remain Islam. Theoretically, it is "the West" that would have to go through significant changes into order to align with Islam... and I don't see that happening.

Excuse me ,you know english is not my first language

by 'compatible ' i mean that we can co exist and find common ground to stand upon...i wasn't aware that 'compatible ' means that one has to change the other entirely and obscure its identity

I believe the west can benefit from Islam a lot...just like i believe that muslims can benefit from the western achievenments in all fields..the political ,the scientific ,and even the intellectual.

That is an interesting question due to the fact that non-Muslim political parties are far from encouraged in Muslim states.

just like islamic political parties are far from encouraged in secular states ,btw

I know I have asked before how exactly you get rid of Islamic government once it is in power without a civil war given that there is no real opposition.

The governmental turn over is part of the shura as i said before

but if you mean how to get rid of an islamic system and replace it by a secular one...theoriticaly, by voting....if the majority wants a secualr system
just like we can get rig of a secualr system and replace it by an islamic one theoritically by voting...if the majortiy wants an islamic system

 

[Cosmos]

The modern history of both Turkey (as Iman mentions) and Iraq, the two most historically secular Muslim countries in the 20th-21st Century, are great examples of how a populous of practicing Muslims are deeply desiring a deepened Islamic culture and governance in their societies.

 

[kai]

I'm afraid you miss al least two major points by posing this question again. First, the ideological worldview that each nation shares amongst its people is not represented by a single government, administration, or stream of thought. It is a constitutional framework that includes many layers and possibilities , similar to any constitution adopted in the modern world. The governments to be elected must work within that framework. Some administrations will be progressive, more secularized than others but they all need to work within that framework that defines the national identity of that nation. Second, the will of the majority and the movement of history cannot be defined by a list of rules. Any number of givens can change in response to emerging needs, views, and circumstances that mandate such change. It happened before in Turkey and to an extent in many other parts of the Middle East, but now the majority want to reclaim their cultural identity and their own Muslim voice that has been marginalized for long. Turkey, which adopts a strictly secular code of governance, has stepped on many human rights and freedoms of people of faith, but is now begining to peacefully change in response to the calls of the Turkish masses. Although I favor a more Islamic inspired system in the Middle East, I am thankful that the return of Islam to the center of Middle East governance is slow and gradual. This is good because it allows for further maturity of thought and vision that is still needed to estabish a well balanced system that incorporates democracy( or Shura) and evolved views of justice and human rights. The difference between positive responsive change and forced change is IMO a difference between change from within and change that is coming from the outside. When the need for change is strong enough, people become ready to sacrifice for it. All great accomplishments in the west and indeed worldwide costed great sacrifices.

and i am afraid your not answering the question.

 

[kai]

The problem is maybe more muslims should learn about Islam and then we in the west ould actually see the Islam that you espouse. Its a difficult task indeed to attempt to learn what is the "true islam" when Muslims themselves seem have such difficulty in doing so[/quote]

I think the thread's name was "islam" and the west..and not "muslims" and the west.....and that's why i talked about al shura which is not applied and the scientific approach which is not embraced practically among muslims

Islam as an ideology and way of life achieved a lot for 1300 prosperous years...so ,if you want to judge it by the state of its followers...no one can blame you....but in order to be fair...you have to look through the entire islamic history collectively ,not only the past 100 years of deterioration
I have! 1300 years of empire are not a good example of compatibility with the west
Also , i would argue that in order to be fair ,one has to judge the picture from all its angles....so ,i would suggest that beside listening to the news about what the extremeist muslims have exploded here and there...and how women are beaten to wear what the media calls 'burka'...it's not a bad idea ,to learn about the daily routine of an average moderate muslim in Egypt ,morocco or turkey...the current challenges they are facing and how they are dealing with it
my point is what Islam are we considering when we think of it being compatible with the west ? right back at you really Maro you are very critical of the west , do you learn about the daily routine of someone in Milton keynes or passadena? and what would that really have to do with a theoretical Islamic government that has compatibility with the west? I am sure Egypts or Turkeys governments are not the ones you wish to use as the example
honestly , i don't think you need to wait for more muslims to learn about islam in order for you to learn about it....it might be a very difficult task for you...but apparently it wasn't for many other westerners who managed to learn and have a positive attitude about the religion....some of them even converted

Its not so much the learning as the representing , there is so much diversity with the Islam i have come across,and to be honest there are certain things in Islam that could never reconcile it to the west.

I think it's your knowledge about Taliban ,probably..that makes you believe so.
I am not up to persuade you,honestly.....you are entitled to your opinion....i just want to point out that "generalizing" statments like X is not compatible with Y are very likely to be false....especially if (x) and (y) are complex entities
well the Taliban are Muslims and they are totally convinced they are doing the will of Allah .

I don't belive that "islam" is 100% compatible with the west either ,if that was your point...nor do i believe that there is zero compatibility...i believe that there is some compatibility.

there may be some compatibility if we in the west ignore the incompatibiliies for the sake of political expediancy or political correctness but those incompatibilities will come to the forefront eventually.

The shura is certainly for ruling...the turn over of the rulers and the parliamenatry system are two things that we agree upon

seeking council is only one aspect of a wider definition of the shura as interpreted by many modern scholars

Interfering with the woman's right to wear what she wants is worrying ,indeed....but whay do we often hear about those who force the women to cover ,and not about those who force them to expose themselves ? Force them to expose themselves?

I haven't seen enough protest from the freedom- loving westerners to the forcing of women to take their hijab off in Turkey ,Tunisia ,France...and their niqab off in many other countires

many people are against the ruling ,you will see this in threads right here on RF but to be honest a lot of people are just confused by it all


I think iman did a very good job answering this...but my direct answer is ' yes '

how could that possibly work? how could you vote out a caliph? would secular political parties be allowed to actively campaign? would a group of apostates be free to campaign for a change to non islamic government?could homosexuals protest and call for equal rights ? could a homosexual even take an active role in government?

wouldnt the Islamic administration feel it was their duty to sustain an Islamic government? especial against secularism?I am deeply puzzled how this could work in reality.surely the facilities for opposition could not exist as they are unislamic, you would have to allow unislamic feeling and tendencies the freedom to express themselves is that possible?

 

[kai]

Excuse me ,you know english is not my first language

by 'compatible ' i mean that we can co exist and find common ground to stand upon...i wasn't aware that 'compatible ' means that one has to change the other entirely and obscure its identity

I believe the west can benefit from Islam a lot...just like i believe that muslims can benefit from the western achievenments in all fields..the political ,the scientific ,and even the intellectual.


just like islamic political parties are far from encouraged in secular states ,btw

The governmental turn over is part of the shura as i said before

but if you mean how to get rid of an islamic system and replace it by a secular one...theoriticaly, by voting....if the majority wants a secualr system
just like we can get rig of a secualr system and replace it by an islamic one theoritically by voting...if the majortiy wants an islamic system

I know this was not in answer to me Maro but what you describe here is western style democracy?

 

[Cosmos]

how could that possibly work? how could you vote out a caliph? would secular political parties be allowed to actively campaign? would a group of apostates be free to campaign for a change to non islamic government?could homosexuals protest and call for equal rights ? could a homosexual even take an active role in government?

wouldnt the Islamic administration feel it was their duty to sustain an Islamic government? especial against secularism?I am deeply puzzled how this could work in reality.surely the facilities for opposition could not exist as they are unislamic, you would have to allow unislamic feeling and tendencies the freedom to express themselves is that possible?

I think this is part of the ignorance of political Islam in Western minds. For one, to speak of the Caliphate when this Islamic institution fell in 1924 along with the Turkish sultanate wherein it was established. Secondly, you seem to be purposefully mixing liberal ideologies with secular values in themselves, such as the issue of 'gay rights' (as redundant as 'black rights'--when everyone should be protected under human rights civil rights). Therefore, since we're talking about democratic systems, it's needless to say that any minority, including homosexuals, would have a minority influence on the society at large and any social roles they may have would by nature of democratic procedure only take precedence in small communities. Third, if you study Islamic history well, you'd realize that Muslims have for centuries allowed people to govern themselves within their own theological/civil jurisprudence, so to ask whether or not anyone can exercise any rights outside of Islamic law is groundless. May I remind that in Sunni tradition the Caliphate in terms of administrative functioning, particularly in more modern times, has walked a fine line between theocracy and monarchy.

 

[kai]

I think this is part of the ignorance of political Islam in Western minds. For one, to speak of the Caliphate when this Islamic institution fell in 1924 along with the Turkish sultanate wherein it was established. well what shall we speak of? as there is no true islamic government we must speak of somethingSecondly, you seem to be purposefully mixing liberal ideologies with secular values in themselves, such as the issue of 'gay rights' (as redundant as 'black rights'--when everyone should be protected under human rights civil rights). Therefore, since we're talking about democratic systems, it's needless to say that any minority, including homosexuals, would have a minority influence on the society at large and any social roles they may have would by nature of democratic procedure only take precedence in small communities. Not so! in the west the rights of the individual are paramount , the rights of homosexuals are nationwide and in reality are the rights of the individual permeate through out the systemThird, if you study Islamic history well, you'd realize that Muslims have for centuries allowed people to govern themselves within their own theological/civil jurisprudence, so to ask whether or not anyone can exercise any rights outside of Islamic law is groundless. again not so they may well have allowed people to govern themselves under the umbrella of the empire but there was never any illusion as to who was actually in charge and who collected the taxes. May I remind that in Sunni tradition the Caliphate in terms of administrative functioning, particularly in more modern times, has walked a fine line between theocracy and monarchy.

and neither of which are compatible with the west except of course constitutional monarchies like the UKs
but i still cannot conceive how an Islamic state instituted on the basis that it is administrating the Ummah, by the wishes of Allah himself according to Sharia could allow itself to be voted out of office.

 

[Cosmos]

Ultimately, you've only reinforced my points. Constitutional monarchy in the Western world is the most traditional form of democratic governance, so you acknowledging the fact that Islamic principles are aligned with this, yet not accepting the correlation is illogical. I think the main issue is that Westerners are just plain seeking the cultural dominance of the Islamic East. It is ridiculously unfair to expect an answer as to how Sharia law can be annulled ever in a Muslim majority state (a non-sequiter), while equally expecting Sharia to be non-implementable in Western society!

 

[kai]

Ultimately, you've only reinforced my points. Constitutional monarchy in the Western world is the most traditional form of democratic governance, so you acknowledging the fact that Islamic principles are aligned with this, yet not accepting the correlation is illogical. I think the main issue is that Westerners are just plain seeking the cultural dominance of the Islamic East.

It is ridiculously unfair to expect an answer as to how Sharia law can be annulled ever in a Muslim majority state (a non-sequiter), while equally expecting Sharia to be non-implementable in Western society

!

Constitutional ,monarchy has nothing really to do with governance or democracy in my country its a left over ,the remains of feudalism and empire, its out of date and is gradually being whittled away and will someday peter out.

I don't think its ridiculous i think its fundamental in the OP how the heck can two societies find points of acceptability with each other if you paper over gaping chasms. Look in my country an Islamic political party calling for the UK to be an islamic state is quite capable of participating in the election process. all i am asking is, would the opposite be acceptable in an Islamic state?


what about religious freedom? can an Islamic state handle religious freedom , a test of that, is the question can Muslims be free to leave Islam? if Muslims are not free to leave Islam then this kind of restriction is totally incompatible with western thinking.

you cant say oh yes we can do democracy! we have no problem with participation in government! ---but you are forbidden to leave Islam. It doesnt fit if an Islamic states majority ceased to be Muslims then the state would cease to be Islamic and and Islamic government in my opinion must seek to avert that.once an Islamic state is established it would be almost heretical to allow the participation in government process of non Muslim idealists.