Our values are superior to yours so...

[Koldo]

I'm not really sure. I would not want someone who was a mass killer or anything like that. It is hard to draw any lines.

At first i would say it depends on whether the crime in that country is also considered a crime in your country.

The problem is that people could simply accuse the government of their country of producing false evidence.

Where to go? All these countries who want to stick their nose in other countries business should be the first to welcome these refugees.

I agree, but they don't.

And as such, people can't simply leave their countries.

 

[jonman122]

They certainly clash with mine as well, but just like any religion, you have to separate religion from politics.

I just finished Benazir Bhutto's book, "Reconciliation" on audio, and she spoke of her dream of an Islamic democracy, in which both Islam and democracy can abide together in the same breath. I highly recommend her book, and she was one wonderfully progressive woman who held to her faith and loved her religious culture.

The present fundamentalist Shari'a law is actually anti-Qur'anic, but many Islamic countries claim that it somehow has to do with their religion. We have two Canadian associations that both see these things and more as cultural and have nothing to do with Islam proper: the Muslim Canadian Congress, and the Canadian Muslim Union.

I've even hung out with lesbian and gay Muslims in Vancouver. Pretty amazing if you ask me!

People like Ismaili Muslims do much good in the name of religion. The Ismaili Muslims in our province once a year do a charity drive and walk for some cause, such as raising funds for cancer research, or the like. So to think that a religion can be depicted through some countries' laws is pretty narrow-minded.

It's like assuming that Canadian Christianity must be barbaric because of the practices done in the name of Christianity in Africa, for example. Or the anti-homosexual stances of the Unitarian Universalist congregations in Africa, versus its otherwise progressive stances elsewhere in the world.

I'm not basing my interpretation of Muslims or Islam off of sharia law, it's seeming to me that Gharib is defending Sharia law in Islamic countries and saying that Canadian laws and culture (western culture) directly conflict with his. I have no problem with Muslims or with anyone, I'm Canadian too as you said, everyone is allowed and everyone is accepted here as far as I'm aware and no one will be put in prison for believing in one religion or the other, which can't be said of some religious nations.

I stand by what my country stands for and I believe everyone should have a place and with Canada being one of the best places in the world, well, they're all welcome. But I also think they should leave fundamentalist Sharia law out of the country because it does conflict directly with some of Canada's most strict laws.

 

[Gaura Priya]

You are absolutely right, but so am I. The reason why the people of Iraq think differently is because of Islam.

There was no Democracy, so the way to destroy a people is to change their government and what it allows and what it doesn't. Democracy allows pretty much most of what Islam doesn't.

Actually, Democracy is very Islamic. The Qur'an already mentions that God created people in different cultures and societies in order for us to learn the beauty of diversity.

"O mankind! Lo, We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo, the noblest of you, in the sight of GOD, is the best in conduct. Lo, GOD is the Knower, the Aware."
-- al-Hujarat (the Chambers) 49:13

People should also live in peace with other religions. You know well that the Prophet Muhammad allowed people to stay Jews and Christians in Medina, and everyone lived in harmony with each other. This was also very apparent in the Islamic Golden Age (or the 'Islamic renaissance') like in Spain during the Islamic rule, right until its downfall.

There is no compulsion in religion, the Book says. That our deeds is what God will see, not necessarily what we believe. And that if there is a problem between people of differing religions, one should say: "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." (al-Kafirun [the Ones Who Disbelieve in Truth] 109:6)

Just as I recommended to others, Benazir's book ("Reconciliations") is very enlightening. Democracy is a very Islamic idea in itself.

 

[Koldo]

Iraq is the most recent one. We were lied to, and led to believe that they had WMD's, when most studies showed that this wasn't the case. Then, after we took over, we set up a democratic style government, when it's been made somewhat obvious they didn't want such.

Ah, you are talking about a country that USA waged a war against.
Any examples on where war isn't involved?
Because it is, historically, particularly common for whoever wins a war by controlling the opponent's territory to do whatever one pleases with it.

What I mean is that each country should decide, for themselves and on their own, without outside help, what type of government they have, what style of economic system they have, etc.

So you do mean that people should fend for themselves in their countries.
As i have said, this also has negative consequences.
By omission, you allow the lions to have a feast.

And, by the same token, we can compare it to other countries who are doing much better.

Yes, indeed. You are making my point though.
There are ways to compare 'better' and 'worse'.

Then you would be perfectly fine with other countries coming in and doing the same to us? If you're fine with us doing it to other countries, then you would have to apply the same standard and say that it's ok for it to be done to us. I'm not really ok with that.

By the influx of western culture into nations where the people have made it clear they don't want it, like a McDonald's on every corner, the things seen on TV, music, etc.

Let me state that i am not from USA. I am from Brazil.
A country that receives a constant influx of american culture.
This is done through our personal choices on what products and services we want to make use of. It is not being 'forced' on us.

Likewise, i can't imagine a McDonald's suceeding on a capitalist market when the citizens don't purchase food there. That's the result of personal choice.
The same applies to TV, music,etc.

Not to mention placing democracies where people want theocracies, or capitalism where people want socialism, etc.

What was the last time this happened not as a result of war?

 

[Sahar]

I would agree with this if I could believe that the laws being made would benefit the people.

Why should we (mankind as a whole) stay out of the business of a country where the people will punish a 10 year old girl for being raped by a 40 year old man, where instead of trying to help her through her now mountain-sized mental and physical traumas, they give her 100 lashes or stone her to death for having made the man commit adultery?

Jonman, have you ever voiced the same amount of concern for the thousands of Syrian children who were slaughtered by the Syrian government?
Why did you choose to mention examples like these that happen extremely rarely in comparison to the systematic daily slaughter of innocent Syrians including children?

Don't you think that the Western governments are not genuinely concerned about what they call human rights but they choose to intervene when this serves their interests?
Don't you think the Western media choose to focus on some stories, exaggerate and twist them to serve the interests of some politicians to push their agenda while giving little care to other stories that deserve the same amount of concern or maybe more?

 

[jonman122]

Jonman, have you ever voiced the same amount of concern for the thousands of Syrian children who were slaughtered by the Syrian government?
Why did you choose to mention examples like these that happen extremely rarely in comparison to the systematic daily slaughter of innocent Syrians including children?

Don't you think that the Western governments are not genuinely concerned about what they call human rights but they choose to intervene when this serves their interests?
Don't you think the Western media choose to focus on some stories, exaggerate and twist them to serve the interests of some politicians to push their agenda while giving little care to other stories that deserve the same amount of concern or maybe more?

I think that wherever innocents are killed by their governments it should be stopped, whether it be in Syria, the old Soviet Russia, countries that uphold fundamentalist Sharia law... Anywhere that supports that kind of behavior. In this case you were making an argument in support of the morals of muslims who disagree with western culture or western laws, and those people turn out to be predominantly fundamentalist. Or I'd hope so, if the people in the middle disagree with normal western laws like "don't murder innocent people" then I think the fundamentalists might be a lot worse than I'd thought.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ah, you are talking about a country that USA waged a war against.
Any examples on where war isn't involved?
Because it is, historically, particularly common for whoever wins a war by controlling the opponent's territory to do whatever one pleases with it.

Not off the top of my head. But I have issue with the whole idea of war and taking over another country. I know this is the way of the world and that's not going to stop anytime soon, if at all. But at least we could go by the "just war" theory. We had no business in Iraq at all.

So you do mean that people should fend for themselves in their countries.
As i have said, this also has negative consequences.
By omission, you allow the lions to have a feast.

Yes, in general. The people have to fend for themselves, because if they don't, they'll always be relying on others for help. Now, there are exceptions to every rule, and this one is no different. So there are instances where I believe this wouldn't apply. But the people of a nation have tools to do things for themselves, even if it's going up against a corrupt government.

Yes, indeed. You are making my point though.
There are ways to compare 'better' and 'worse'.

Yes, this is true. This seems to be something relative and subjective.

Let me state that i am not from USA. I am from Brazil.
A country that receives a constant influx of american culture.
This is done through our personal choices on what products and services we want to make use of. It is not being 'forced' on us.

It's not always forced on the people of a particular country. Sometimes the people do welcome the influx of another culture. But sometimes, there's a cultural paradigm shift that is not wanted.

Likewise, i can't imagine a McDonald's suceeding on a capitalist market when the citizens don't purchase food there. That's the result of personal choice.
The same applies to TV, music,etc.

In theory, this should be true. However, the nature of the human mind, as revealed through psychology, shows that this isn't always the case. Addictions are one big example. I'll give you a great 'for instance' that is personal. I'm a smoker. I know the health risks, the costs, etc, and I do not want to smoke. However, I have an addiction to nicotine that makes it hard to quit. If the temptation was never there to begin with, it's not something I would have been likely to take up.

What was the last time this happened not as a result of war?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. But that still doesn't matter. The issue is that a cultural idea is forced on people who don't want it. They're rights are taken away by another country, in this case, one that preaches freedom and civil liberties. This is hypocritical to me, and something that shouldn't happen.

 

[Sahar]

I think that wherever innocents are killed by their governments it should be stopped, whether it be in Syria, the old Soviet Russia, countries that uphold fundamentalist Sharia law... Anywhere that supports that kind of behavior. In this case you were making an argument in support of the morals of muslims who disagree with western culture or western laws, and those people turn out to be predominantly fundamentalist. Or I'd hope so, if the people in the middle disagree with normal western laws like "don't murder innocent people" then I think the fundamentalists might be a lot worse than I'd thought.

You didn't reply to my questions, unfortunately.

 

[Sahar]

But when establishing moral authority, the "why" most certainly is important. We have to be able to rationalize our morality, otherwise it is entirely arbitrary.

No, we have hundreds of threads about these issues. The question of this thread if you can accept that there is some people out there who view things differently and how we can deal with the differences on the level of nations.

After you showed why your position is more superior, reasonable, rational, etc., can you accept the fact that they don't seem reasonable or rational to me?

I realize that, but that doesn't matter; my morality

So you are basically saying that my view doesn't matter, yours only matters because they seem reasonable to you and thus it should mean they are reasonable to everybody else and this gives you the right to force me to be ruled by it, correct?
Again doesn't this represent the imperialistic mind and attitude?

I certainly would have a problem with you doing that, because you haven't shown how your values are superior.

What if I explained why my position is more reasonable but you didn't buy into it. The same way your view didn't convince me. And we couldn't solve our disagreement.

Would you have a problem with forcing my view on a society that adopts your positions?

 

[Falvlun]

If you think that people should be free to choose what morals they value, then actually, you should prefer Western society.

I think the main beef that Westerners have with the (often admittedly stereotypical) perception of Muslim values is that these values are forced upon people. They must comply or else they are killed or thrown into prison.

You brought up prostitution. If you don't agree with prostitution, then don't hire one or become one.

If you disagree with homosexuality, then don't engage in homosexual behavior.

If you think that woman should cover their entire bodies with a burka, and you are a woman, then feel free to wear it.

But your rights stop at someone else's body. You do not, and should not, have the right to tell some other woman that she must wear a burka. You do not, and should not, have the right to tell someone else whom they are allowed to love. You do not have the right to force someone to have a baby. You do not have the right to force people to only worship in the manner that you do. (Or rather, you have the right to your opinion; but only that. You should not have the right to enforce your opinion upon others.)

That, I think, is the salient difference between Western and Muslim values. Muslim individuals are free to conform to their values in Western society, but a Westerner is not free to follow her value in yours.

 

[Sahar]

If you think that people should be free to choose what morals they value, then actually, you should prefer Western society.

I think the main beef that Westerners have with the (often admittedly stereotypical) perception of Muslim values is that these values are forced upon people. They must comply or else they are killed or thrown into prison.

You brought up prostitution. If you don't agree with prostitution, then don't hire one or become one.

If you disagree with homosexuality, then don't engage in homosexual behavior.

If you think that woman should cover their entire bodies with a burka, and you are a woman, then feel free to wear it.

But your rights stop at someone else's body. You do not, and should not, have the right to tell some other woman that she must wear a burka. You do not, and should not, have the right to tell someone else whom they are allowed to love. You do not have the right to force someone to have a baby. You do not have the right to force people to only worship in the manner that you do. (Or rather, you have the right to your opinion; but only that. You should not have the right to enforce your opinion upon others.)

That, I think, is the salient difference between Western and Muslim values. Muslim individuals are free to conform to their values in Western society, but a Westerner is not free to follow her value in yours.

But why should you have the right to shape your views into a constitution and a legal system in your country but I don't have the right to shape mine in the same way in my country?

 

[Secret Chief]

I shouldn't oversell personal choice. With a burger bar on every corner backed by endless advertising and marketing, how much choice is there? Local cafes can't compete with that and close.

It is American imperialism, not western culture. Countries such as Italy and France show resentment to this commercial and cultural onslaught.

 

[jonman122]

You didn't reply to my questions, unfortunately.

The beauty of the internet and free speech is that we as a culture do not need the governments approval to put pressure on foreign governments, we can actually get our governments to put pressure on them with petitions, or put pressure directly on those people and nations using the internet.

In other words I don't think the governments JUST play on the world issues that suit their interests, although they do attempt to bring them to the top of the list. The thing is I don't see where these issues are being brought up by western governments, these issues are being brought up by free people in free countries, not by governments.

heres an example right at this very moment:

Avaaz - Horror in paradise

The Maldives legal system is derived mainly from traditional islamic law, so why was this girl ever even allowed to be publicly sentenced to 100 lashes in public? This is exactly what I was talking about, a girl that is underage being raped repeatedly by her father until she had a child, and the child, the baby, has already been murdered and now SHE is supposed to be whipped 100 times. Is that the kind of government you're arguing for? Because it sounds like you're arguing for one similar to what the western culture has seen as good and just, but then you say you don't like the "culture." I'm not sure at all where you stand, you're not making it clear.

 

[gnomon]

Prostitution in the United States is illegal in all but a few counties in one State of this nation. That's because apparently this "monolithic Western" culture holds prostitution is immoral. Actually, this vastly multicultural nation still has the majority viewing it as immoral enough to proscribe against it.

Imagine that.

Methinks the logical fallacy of some form of overgeneralizations is forming the basis of this entire thread.

 

[Sahar]

I suppose that I should feel blessed that I was born Canadian. However, I do understand that modernity should not have to model itself after 'Western values' but unfortunately that is the case.

But we have many Muslims in Canada, and Islam is the second biggest religion around here. Many are Sunni, but a good number are also Shia and Ismaili, and also Ahmadi. While some like Shari'a, most do not and feel that Shari'a is a cultural thing, not an Islamic thing.

We have many Muslimahs who wear hijab like no biggie. We also have many other Muslimahs who, although still committed to their religion, do not wear hijab. And there is a good but growing minority of niqab and burqa wearers.

We are blessed by our freedom and diversity to choose. A woman in Canada can choose if she desires to wear a hijab, a hat, or a head of her beautiful hair, without it being considered sexual or being harassed in making different choices. Democratic rule allows for choice in the given country, and I do see it as a sacred rule and right!

Although, sometimes I wish I could go in public in a sari without being stared at by everyone else, lol.

Hello Gaura Priya,
Canada is a country that I would like to visit, sure. I also feel very blessed to be a Muslim. And despite all the problems and troubles that face my country now, I love it so much and one of the things I adore about Egypt is its Islam.

I appreciate freedom and diversity. I think women can wear hijab or not and they should be protected from sexual harassment. I also believe that Islam and its Shari'a protect all this.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Cultural imperialism is an evil.

Your comment makes me wonder if Muslims have ever issued an apology for imposing Islam on Indonesia and other places.

 

[Aquitaine]

Speaking from a Muslim perspective, in many threads about Islam, I find a problem.
I am certain that many non Muslims don't like some Islamic concepts and rulings. And they believe it's oppressive...I don't know barbaric...whatever. And I am not sure that non Muslims realize that many Muslims have a trouble with some Western concepts (I said Western because they are dominating the world currently) and see them very negatively and with disgust as some see Islam.

Now this is not my problem. My problem is not about having opposite views. But about the fact that because you think that your values are better than mine, we have to formulate the laws of our country according to yours. I can't help saying this is a typical imperialistic mindset. Almost all Muslim countries have suffered from Western imperialism and colonialism. And they have paid very expensive price for this and in their attempts to get their independence (of course they still do).

I am taking prostitution as an example and don't really mean to discuss it, you think that prostitution is somehow a human right for whatever reasons you have and they must be good reasons in your eyes. Anyone who wishes to be a prostitute must not be prevented from doing so. And it happened that your society agrees on this idea so the laws are in cope with this.

On the other hand, I don't think it's a right and I think it must be illegalized. The society I live in agrees on my view and it's manifested in the Law.

Of course the people of your country don't accept the idea of forcing my views on them. Readily we can hear the screams out loud when the word Shari'a is mentioned there.
Why don't you expect Muslims in their countries to do the same? I mean refusing to be ruled by non Muslim values that are inconsistent with theirs?

Human rights cross borders and are universal. Sorry when we are having our differences on some values, surely this means they are not universal. Sure there are some universal values, but we disagree on others. Not because there are some people who consider them to be universal, they must be. Not because you think that yours are more superior to ours, it must mean we should be ruled by yours (except of course believing that you have more powers than others and this gives you the right to subdue them).

Some Muslims may disagree with me. Certainly, there is a different non-Muslim perspective to all this.

Cultural Imperialism has existed since the earliest warring civilisations. Yeah it's going on now by the more influential and powerfull nations, but to be honest even Islamic societies and empires have been guilty of it - it just doesn't happen much with Islamic societies today because they're all mostly 3rd World countries with no significant military.

The desire to dominate Militarily, Economically and Socially is just simple Human nature (regardless of their religion).

 

[Koldo]

Not off the top of my head. But I have issue with the whole idea of war and taking over another country. I know this is the way of the world and that's not going to stop anytime soon, if at all. But at least we could go by the "just war" theory. We had no business in Iraq at all.

That's more of a disagreement with the war itself ( and taking over another country ), than anything else.

Yes, in general. The people have to fend for themselves, because if they don't, they'll always be relying on others for help. Now, there are exceptions to every rule, and this one is no different. So there are instances where I believe this wouldn't apply. But the people of a nation have tools to do things for themselves, even if it's going up against a corrupt government.

Even at the cost of a bloodbath?

Yes, this is true. This seems to be something relative and subjective.

Relative, yes.
Subjective, not quite.

It's not always forced on the people of a particular country. Sometimes the people do welcome the influx of another culture. But sometimes, there's a cultural paradigm shift that is not wanted.

In theory, this should be true. However, the nature of the human mind, as revealed through psychology, shows that this isn't always the case. Addictions are one big example. I'll give you a great 'for instance' that is personal. I'm a smoker. I know the health risks, the costs, etc, and I do not want to smoke. However, I have an addiction to nicotine that makes it hard to quit. If the temptation was never there to begin with, it's not something I would have been likely to take up.

What?
So McDonald's stands in those countries because people are addicted to it, and not because people simply like the hamburgers there. Really?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. But that still doesn't matter. The issue is that a cultural idea is forced on people who don't want it. They're rights are taken away by another country, in this case, one that preaches freedom and civil liberties. This is hypocritical to me, and something that shouldn't happen.

It does matter, because otherwise, how is it being 'forced'?

 

[F0uad]

What i find is strange whenever things happen in the WEST and trust me more things happen in the WEST then in the east, people of the West just ignore it but when something happens in the East then we suddenly have to interfere or condemn them the double-standards here are just to noticeable. We in the East don't belief we are superior that's why we don't want to interfere with the Western problems nor do we point fingers because we know our own states are not perfect either.

Now the west thinks it has ''better'' values in theory but when looked at the practice of it, i don't really see it being ''better'' in any way.

 

[Falvlun]

But why should you have the right to shape your views into a constitution and a legal system in your country but I don't have the right to shape mine in the same way in my country?

I told you, because the "value" that is in our constitution is "freedom of choice". It means you are free to practice whatever moral system you want.

Can you not see the difference between:
You are free to practice whichever religion you please.

and

You must practice Islam or you will be thrown into jail.


In both sorts, you are allowed to practice Islam. But only in the second sort am I not allowed to be an atheist. What right of yours is being taken away or infringed upon in first? What right do you have to force a particular religion on anyone?