Is Judging Islamic Culture Possible?

[madera23]

...
I agree whole heartedly.

Do you also agree that this applies to Christianity as well?

Can you expand on that thought A_uk! Like, what might also apply to Christianity, as well?

yes I do.
Creating a religion out of CHristianjty is brain washing.
Did Christ create a religion? NO, IT IS MAN MADE.
The bible says "the word is dead, the spirit of the word gives life."
Christians memorize the word and it becomes an intellectual path, not spiritual.
That is not Christianity.

[morganna swish]

I have serious issues with the word 'multiculturalism', not least because it is a contradiction in terms.

The author has an issue with pluralist multiculturalism:

Pluralist multiculturalism and identity politics appear to be creating a crisis of liberal values...

Multiculturalism is not just a synonym for ‘cultural diversity’. Rather, it is an approach states adopt in dealing with the relationships between specific cultures and other members of society.

Liberal multiculturalism – of which I am an advocate – accepts diversity within a broadly liberal framework, and therefore rejects any intolerant or authoritarian cultural practices that violate the equal rights of others (including ‘others’ from within the same minority community) to pursue their own vision of the ‘good life’.

By contrast, pluralist multiculturalism is the view that universal suffrage, equal legal status and entitlements, and equality of opportunity are not sufficient.

In addition, pluralist multiculturalism requires legal privileges or exclusions that enable cultural groups to maintain their distinctive practices. Its advocates believe that citizens in liberal democracies not only should be prohibited from offending cultural minorities, but must participate in protecting their sacred beliefs from criticism.

Pluralist multiculturalists place a greater emphasis on cultural diversity than on equal rights and opportunities for all.

- emphasis added.

Must read more of this article:
ijtihad - first thought it was a typing error

[morganna swish]

"Terri Murray has a Master of Theology from Heythrop College, London, and a PhD in social & contextual theology from Oxford Brookes. She is a recovering Catholic and has taught Philosophy & Film Studies at Hampstead College of Fine Arts & Humanities in London for over ten years."
As a Catholic, I find the denigrating phrase "recovering Catholic" to be very offensive.

I see that she is now a rationalist, that she is no longer a Christian believer. https://rationalist.org.uk/contributors ... rri-murray

Thanks for the link; from it:
'Dr Terri Murray is an essayist, author, recovering Catholic and dedicated defender of free speech.'
She values reason.

'Recovering Catholic' - I was slightly confused; a Catholic recovering from what ? Usually, you talk about someone 'recovering' from alcoholism. So, this suggests that being a Catholic does some kind of harm. Perhaps it did, to her. As a self description, it cuts to the chase. She no longer believes in the Catholic faith. However, as a general way of describing Catholics, I can see where offense might be taken.

The article, itself, apears to be most informative.

[morganna swish]

Terri Murray argues that ijtihad and critical debate are essential in a liberal, multicultural society.

From wiki:

Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد‎ ijtihād, "diligence") is an Islamic legal term that means “independent reasoning” or “the utmost effort an individual can put forth in an activity.”[1] As one of the four sources of Sunni law, it is recognized as the decision-making process in Islamic law (sharia) through personal effort (jihad) which is completely independent of any school (madhhab) of jurisprudence (fiqh). As opposed to taqlid, it requires a “thorough knowledge of theology, revealed texts and legal theory (usul al-fiqh); an exceptional capacity for legal reasoning; thorough knowledge of Arabic.”[2] By using both the Qu'ran and Hadith as resources, the scholar is required to carefully rely on analogical reasoning to find a solution to a legal problem, which considered to be a religious duty for those qualified to conduct it.

From her article:

It is often pointed out that criticism of Islam should only be allowed if it is informed criticism. While this is certainly preferable for commentary on any subject, all too often the demand for more accurate or complete information again forecloses debate over the most contentious beliefs or practices by sliding into the perfectionist fallacy: that unless you know everything about Islam, you can’t know anything about it.

The censorship of Tom Holland’s documentary on the birth of Islam that prevented a public screening in 2012 was a key example of this approach to informed ‘debate’: unless you have the ‘right’ information, from the ‘right’ institutional sources, you are unqualified to speak on the subject.

Who censored the documentary and why ?

[spike]

Arising_uk

And yet it is the Islamic world who supplies most of the energy to keep this 'system' going?

But it was Westerners who taught the Arab/Islamic world to supply the 'system'. In doing so the oil industry gave the Arab/Islam world a 'centre' and a sense of cohesion. The selling of oil to the West forced them to become part of the rest of the world. Oil helped modernize them. The business of oil has helped standardize the Arab world, giving it management skills and common ground on which to engage the rest of the world.

I've yet to see this 'containment system' you talk about?

Well, I suggest you look around, like at the secularism that contains and enables the system and its complexities. And the multiculturalism that exists in Western nations must abide by the same rules and the "rule of law", which is a great containment system in itself.

The economy is another containment. The West promotes non discriminatory economic practises and participation. That participation enables all, including the participation of women. But the economic participation of women is spotty and rare in the Islamic world.

The Western world has generally worked for social cohesion, with its numerous ways of engaging and networking people. The Islamic world has not been incline to do such things because that hasn't been its style. This has perpetuated social and political disfunction, like in Egpyt and Pakistan, where it always seems to be one step forward two steps back.

[spike]

Not only should Islamic culture be judged but it is imperative that it is. Look how poorly it has been preforming lately. It being held in judgement will help improve and modify it.

The judging of Islamic culture should first be done from within. But that intellectual tradition has been absent in Islamic culture. The West has been pressing the issue but Islamic culture has been extremely stubborn and intransigent in its ways.

At times it seems like War and violence is the only alternative to get people to sit-up and pay attention.

[Melchior]

First of all I'll start by saying I hate this form and am reluctant to participate in it. I wish it was one where authors of articles in the magazine take part. But then I understand why they might not join in, because of some of the nonsensical, lamebrain arguments they might or could find themselves in. Nevertheless, I was inspired by the nature of this article to comment on it.

I think it is possible to judge and argue against Islamic Culture. It's imperative that we challenge its archaic nature and try to reform it. The routes of Islamic culture are not conducive to the modern world. The modern world needs progressive and open societies, where women can participate equally and ideas are exchanged freely. Islamic culture fights against openness and multiculturalism. It's not the cosmopolitan entity Civilization is in favour of. One fact that makes Islam a poor venue for the modern world and the multicultural trajectory it's on is that it acts both as a religion and political entity. That mix can have devastating consequences in this world. Religion should not overrides rationale and common sense like Islamic culture tends to do.

I agree whole heartedly.

Says who? They have every right to have their culture and be "unmodern". What they do not have is the right to impose it upon others!

[Blaggard]

Yes: next question.

[HexHammer]

One has to be very stupid not to be able to judge a culture, just that most will do it on a glaringly ignorent basis.