Multiculturalism!

If you start with a quote about building a gallows next to a pyre, and conclude "I can only shake my head at any country stupid enough to let immigrant muslims establish sharia law in their communities", the non sequitur is clear. You are drawing meaning from that quote that was never there.

My point is not that I don't like imperialist philosophy. My point is that Napier was literally an imperialist, the ideas he expressed were imperialist, and I have no interest in that as such ideas are realistically not important in the modern world.

From the little I know of Napier, it wouldn't suprise me if he literally would be happy to build a gallows next to a pyre. But it's not really important what he would do, because he has been dead for 160 years and his ideas are no longer relevant.

His ideas are no longer relevant not just because he is dead, but because the influence of the kind of ideas he expresses has been killed by better ones.

edited 26th Aug '13 7:27:28 PM by editerguy

Guys, stop...

This conversation is going nowhere.

In modern states, the argument is you need "logical justification" to declare law against/for something. "Its our tradition" or "We always do things that way" is no longer good justification.

"All culture are equal" just means you need better reason to make law, "its our culture" no longer sufficient, even if that culture are better than others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_test is legal term for that.

"Human Rights" is one of the reason to stop fascism, honor killing, slave trading and albino hunting. "Public Safety" is another good reason.

"Interest in public education" is used to enforce school curriculum, including evolution. opposing evolution, as long as you didn't prevent public school teaching it is legal.

"Environment", "Public Health", and dozens of other reason usually can be found to justify various law in western society.

"Western Culture just better way" is no longer acceptable reason in modern multicultural state.

Granted, its implementation is not that perfect, banning horse slaughter while permitting pig slaughter have no justification other than "cultural values". There are several laws that odd like that. But "logical justification" usually could be found, even if politic and media emphasis on "cultural values".

ban on Chewing betel nuts is one thing that hard to justify other than "cultural values". Ban one of Marijuana, Tobacco, Alcohol, or horse tranquilizers while permitting others is very much influenced by "cultural values", even if "public health" is used as justification.

Sharia, in a very limited way, is no more than using islamic law for arbitration. Government also tolerate jewish groups using their own law, Business Contract also usually have clause specifying which state law/arbitration service to be used when there are dispute.

As long as its arbitration, civil law is supreme to it, and people not forced to use it, there are nothing wrong with it.

Any muslim who don't like it could use secular civil law. private pressure is usually applied, but its no concern of government, shunning troublesome member is any groups rights.

That is still playing into the myth. Jewish law is overridden by the law of the land, Sharia's goal is to become the law of all lands, not so much equivalent. Besides that, it is perfectly possible to function as a Jew or Muslim without either and even if it was not it still is not a problem non Jews and non Muslims should care about.

But when you have serious policy debates over whether or not a tested and tried theory is worthy of being taught in classrooms, Sharia probably is not your first concern. How are you going to tackle entire theocratic orders when you cannot even remove rambling from the public sphere?

I do not even get into overly broad categorizations such as "western culture" but... Pam Am culture is largely Latin or German influenced, just like Europe, yet a lot of us would prefer to live in a world where we did not rely Europe or have to deal with the old world in any shape or form. Even among Pan Am, we are hardly monolithic. A lot would prefer not having to associate with their more immediate neighbors either. Both the Hopi and the Nation Of Islam are currently preaching that the eradication of their immediate neighbors is something to look forward to, for example.

As Muslim worship is part of syariah, a Muslim cannot be fully function without it.

Cider, that's just completely wrong. Sharia has no goal. People might have goals in having Sharia law (whatever that even means) take precedence over local law but most Muslims do the same thing as Christians... local law trumps most religious law. This type of generalisation, where you extend some fringe extremist group of muslims who want Sharia law in place as the viewpoint of the rest of muslims is ridiculous. This is as bad as people who pretend muslim immigrants in Canada brought over face veils. In fact, the people wearing face veils were born here in North Ameria and wear that clothing as a sign of protest on government infringing on their cultural rights.

Nor is Sharia law even standardised. It's based on local interpretation. Besides, we all have religious law in place. Do we shake our heads at countries that allow Jews to resolve their family troubles using Jewish? Catholics with Catholic law?

We allow a fall back onto local secular law, which trumps religious law, but we have no good reason to outright ban religious laws that don't have effects on human rights or other considerations.

edited 27th Aug '13 8:00:27 PM by breadloaf

^^

Then they can fully function elsewhere. Our laws are the laws of the land, and they fall on all citizens. We have plenty of muslims who live here without practicing sharia law.

As I said, Muslim worship is part of syaria, and I know they have the right to worship.

Muslims in Burkina Faso get along just fine without Sharia, as do they in USA, the aforementioned Nation Of Islam being the most notable. Even if not, the order of the Qu'ran is to follow Sunnah, not Sharia. Sharia is just Sunnah as interpreted by Persian dhimmis twelve thousand years ago.

Sharia uses Ibn Ishaq's Sirat, reproduced for us by Al Tabari and Rusul Allah as well as six Hadith collections deemed authentic based on who told them and who they were told about but as the Qu'ran is the highest Sahih, someone who feels the other works do not match up does not have to take any stock in them. (How, I don't know, but donot I care). Furthermore, many Muslims took Muhammad's statement "every nation has its messenger" seriously and believe his Sunnah has been abrogated as far as their customs go by whoever they identify as their nation's messenger.

If we were to be completely multicultural, we would have to note it is possible to be a Muslim or practice Islam without the Qu'ran. Wafa Sultan calls herself a Muslim and makes no effort to follow any of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah's teachings, beyond "belief in Allah" I suppose but it is not as if Allah did not exist until Muhammad showed up. At the most basic the words mean submission and one who submits. Any religion professing submission (that is, nearly all of them) describing itself in Arabic, could be "Islam". A Jew/Christian veneration can go on about Allah Al-Abram, Allah Al-Isaac, Allah Al-Yacub with lots of talk of Aslam, Islam and Istaslama to make their humility before He that Is evident but we don't talk about them when discussing Islam because Qu'ranic religious derivatives are more important. Not all cultures are equal.

What is most relevant to us is the hostile takeover of Trinidad by Imans claiming the world belonged to them based on their sacred texts. When one sees a neighboring nation cave in, if only briefly, exactly how "fringe" the aggressor was becomes slightly less relevant compared to the cause of aggression and how likely it is to repeat itself. Amidst five percentiles and searchers of the mother plane it is a fringe belief in this region, which does not change that there is a decidedly Muslim religious system seeking to dominate over all else, unconfined by any so-to-come miraculous events or ties to a specific holy land. We occasionally hear a Jew declaring Canaan's children are not fit to rule but they are otherwise content so long as their holy ways are preserved in the only spot in the Middle East without oil.

The two are not equivalent, if we were to treat them as such we might as well treat every Muslim group as equivalents too, which would be an act of folly. That is why multiculturalism is a myth, both in its supposed use and in its very concept. If someone wants to declare our Earth only seven thousand years old or really seventy six trillion years old, that it will end in 2012 or last until all Jews are dead, we can let them speak but we should not take them seriously nor do we have to tip toe around them for fear of hurting feelings.

edited 28th Aug '13 7:23:39 AM by Cider

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I think you meant 12 hundred years. Islam most certainly is not 12 thousand years old.

But yeah, Islam is a lot more fractured than people think it is. Not nearly to the extent of Christianity, but there are a lot of random divisions depending on where you are.

And there is an extremely loud branch that honestly wants to wipe everyone else out. The vast majority do not. That's kind of the way it is.

Wafa Sultan calls herself an atheist and a Muslim reformer, a stupid stance. I don't want to list other things that are wrong with her. And again, according to Sunni school of thought, even doing an act of kindness is following syariah.

She told Time Magazine that she was a Muslim aiming to free other Muslims from brainwashing. You can find it on their websites top 100 most influential people of 2006 in the activist category. The same year I believe she gave an a pretty emphatic interview to the New York Times very much describing herself as a Muslim and lamenting on how the Qu'ran had been distorted for 1400 years.

Whether or not you agree with anything she says, her supposed importance or even the very real possibility she is no longer a Muslim now, which is a definite possibility, she still was a Muslim who rejected any thing we would recognize as orthodox doctrine, Sunni or otherwise.

By contrast here, we have a civil site soft spoken question and answer site that says in the plainest terms.

Now in its plainest term, Sharia means legislation. I could tell you why the Qur'an in of itself does not lay it down, explaining the two extra sources of texts which comprise what Sunni's believe is the Sunnah and some other do not but I really do not care about theology of Muslims. Just that here we have one (some?) explaining how spreading Sharia is compulsory for all Muslims living where it is not the law of the land. Whether or not you personally, whether every Muslim who does agree is going to be as violent as those in the Trinidad uprisings, the fact remains there is a Muslim religious movement that seeks to dominate over all things. We who are just fine not being Muslims or Dhimmis should not be afraid to disagree with or oppose their efforts for expansion, even if they are peaceful. We should just peacefully oppose.

But as said, when teaching evolution is a serious debate in the educational system, religion already has too big a grip on your culture. We should not have to take everything seriously just because someone else does. Sometimes other people will just have to learn to cope rather than be catered to. (the pundits-Hind, monks and magi used to be at the forefront of scientific study so we know they can)

My culture? I'm curious what you think my culture is. Whatever. Islam QA is well known as hardliner, and syariah is about following the Quran and sunnah, even the site you mention agrees with that.

edited 28th Aug '13 11:18:53 AM by Blurring

Blurring? Not you in particular, if I was addressing anyone directly with that statement it would have been Barkey (I was not). It was just a general statement, though Abraham's religions in particular are know for the "evolution debate" all across the globe, never mind Christians pioneered the theory, and is a prime example of how we are really not ready to take on a topic like Sharia when we cannot even do something as simple as dismiss those who dismiss a tried and tested scientific theory that forms the backbone of modern biology.

As for one culture being superior to another, I don't have to go on about it or even into much detail, the people I mentioned do that well enough for me. All are not equal though, specifically Jewish law and Sharia are not equivalent and the mistake comes from assuming all cultures are equal. How could two religious systems be that different? I do not really care about which is superior but if I have to state what I think is superior sobetit, a secular society without codified theocratic laws where we can believe whatever we like. Let the pastor preach and see if it makes sense to you according to what you read.

Some people disagree and I am fine with that but all the same I am going critique them given an opportunity. Q&A might be "hardliners" but that does not somehow make them irrelevant. Equal or unequal does not always mean "better" or "worse". Sometimes it just means more "relevant". The fact is the people out to spread Sharia believe they are simply following the example of their prophet and the we have seen the results. Trinidad put down its uprisings, Somalia did not. Though the sister nation has not escalated so far yet, Guyanese are pretty much always prepared to fight breakouts and they do it annually in Bangladesh. The most interesting case of this as related to this discussion could be in the UK.

The article says "99.9 percent of Muslims despise these guys", which is all well and fine but that point one percent happen to pretty successful in making their presence felt. I cannot speak for anyone in the UK but I see a nation where calls for imposing their way from a 2% minority formed relatively recently and the Q&A guys are what comes to mind. You in the so called 99.9 percent may think your culture superior to the hardliner's, unequal in that sense, but you are also unequal in global impact. And that goes back to the myth of multiculturalism. Wars have been fought on three continents over spreading Sharia in the last two-three decades but somehow simply saying why Jewish law does not raise the same worries necessitates debate (not that I mind). With this 'multicultural' mindset we cannot even state contrasts without implying one being better and thus "out" ourselves as bigots, or whatever.

But the fact is, Jewish law is trumped by the law of the land and just wants a part of Western Asia. This also explains why Christians got it harder than Jews in Rome and Persia, till Christianity and Islam took over anyway and Jews became "killers of the prophets". Before then, Jews were content, not particularly interested in proselytizing or expanding beyond their holy land. Christianity has always wanted to be everywhere and Islam followed suit.

edited 30th Aug '13 10:54:06 AM by Cider

I don't know much about Africa but let me tell you what the western media like to call Islamist nearer to my home. The Jemaah Islamiyah and its allies are nationalists who want to unite the Malays and take back the whole Nusantara, most likely to bring back the glory of Srivijaya which is a Buddhist empire anyway. They are using Islam because it's the only thing the culturally diverse Malays could agree on. The Sulu gunmen are royalist supporters with a very nationalistic slant. The al-Maunah is a deviant cult that only serves its leader. So yeah, every time I see the western media uses the term Islamist I roll my eyes.

Admittedly, Islam is one of the first things I think about when I think of Malaysia now, because of that spat over whether the word Allah should only be for Muslims or not. Spending months dredging through dirt old texts beside an Aramaic dictionary makes me find those things funnier than I should. But the last piece of negative news I read about the country related government sponsored musical tours denouncing gays or something. I get that fundies tend to scream "by any means necessary" but musicals do not exactly scream Nasheed to me.

We could discuss 'Islam' more and how it related to Malaysia further but as far as multiculturalism goes and my opposition, I am all for nationalism. I think one should be Guyanese first, anything other than a human being second, same for American-British-whatever. Culture should be forgotten but we do not need to keep practicing it to the detriment of a state. Having been in small countries and large ones though, I think land mass is slightly overrated. I do not always understand why some groups find the whole "national unity" thing so hard to accept but if they really do not want it, let them leave. However, if a group neither compromises nor departs, for example, it is a problem.

A strong, prideful, national identity can recognize when to declaw and keep noisy cats in a designated corners but under this strange multicultural trend going on we allow all kinds of crazy things. I think to Wole Soyinka around the Christmas day bombing in 2009, when Nigeria was put on the "terrorist watch list", or whatever they are calling it now.

This is not to say I think it is all "Britain's fault", "America's fault" or "colonialism", just that he partly explained why I do not like the multicultural trend better than I could at that time. There are more reasons, one of which is that its current implementation is not sincere, driven less by "learning" and more by "oil/cheap labour" but even if this was not the case I still would not buy the myth.

Remember that Malay is the language in Malaysia. The word Allah is adopted to refer exclusively to the Muslim God. All other meaning associated with the word Allah is not adopted into the language, the Indonesians don't follow this, and allows the word to be used in Indonesian Bibles. Those Bibles are imported here and Malaysian Christians use Allah. The problem is, it is Indonesian usage, not Malaysian, to prevent confusion, that is why the government takes those steps. To prevent what is normal in Indonesia from coming here. Malay have other words for god like tuhan or dewa. It's funny when you think my country is controlled by fundies when other local fundies is screaming the current government is immoral by allowing Metallica to hold a concert here, among other things. The Jemaah Islamiyah recruiting shtick is calling the current government immoral too. Random dudes becoming radicalised? It happens in my country too. By your logic it shouldn't happen right? But it does happen. Or do you actually agree with me that the Jemaah Islamiyah is a bunch of nationalists? And yes, I believe I'm going with Syariah by going against the JI. And if you are updating on news about my country, here is a pre-emptive rebuttal. The non-Muslim students are not eating in a toilet, and Muslim students use that same room right until the fasting months. For the mess after that, I blame nationalism.

edited 31st Aug '13 6:47:57 AM by Blurring

Okay, in the last post I just described why I did not associate Malaysia with fundamentalists.

As for "Indonesian" usage of the word, I really do not care. If you actually take the religious texts seriously you should at least get a basic understanding of the original language and context so you can better understand what is being taught. Allah is just a contraction of Al-illah, an Aramaic term for God predating the Arabic language as we know it.

Politically, "we do it because we do it" has little sway with me. When a custom of the people is causing unnecessary division in the state, my solution would be to toss it, and a little education seems to be the only solution really needed, this stuff is not university level.

But, again, that was the only reason I thought of Islam when thinking of Malaysia and I said the last piece of negative news I read about the country did not give me thoughts fundamentalism at all. Is your goal to make me associate Islam/fundamentalism with Malaysia? Because otherwise, I do not even get what in my last post you were arguing against.

As a (non-Muslim) Malaysian, I would say that of the problems Malaysia has, fundamentalism isn't really one of them. That said, one bit of recent news here that made me roll my eyes was how an entire resort was shut down by authorities simply because the owner allowed Buddhist monks into the surau (Muslim prayer room).

edited 31st Aug '13 6:58:05 AM by Exploder

Apologies, I do mistake your post thinking it states that Malaysia is controlled by fundies. I will still support the court based on the usage in the Malay language and historical events in Malaysia. Anything else is above my head. Just a favour, if you hear anything bad about my country, try to ignore the politicians or the fundies, it is actually a very nice place to live, with multiple cultures united in hating the weather, loving the food and having plans to to fix the national football team.

Sorry for not reading the whole current conversation, but I just wanted to say this:

I think that the principles of a culture should never be held above ethics. You may say that "ethics are defined by each culture", but I disagree. Ethics and morality are not the same. There are certain values that should be applied to every human being equally, and there should be some way to enforce this.

A person does not choose to be born in a specific culture, and yet those cultural values will be imposed on them, regardless of their ethical value. Cultures shouldn't be allowed to force people to mutilate or cripple themselves because of a religion, for example. That is no longer "culture", but simply "tyranny of the majority" (which, sadly, happens everywhere).

There should be some form of consensus between cultures. People of every culture are capable of using the same logic to determine the threshold between what each culture can independently dictate and universal ethics.

edited 12th Sep '13 7:45:57 AM by Teraus

Ah, my second favorite topic. Forgive the Wall O' Text, please.

I am a pluralist in the Isaiah Berlin tradition. I am prepared to tolerate a wide range of cultural practices, but my limits aren't infinite. In particular, I reserve the right not to tolerate the practices of people who themselves are intolerant, or oppressive of some other person or persons. Also, my sense of empathy with victims is rather strong. For example, the allies were correct to fight the Nazi's in WWII. It's correct to oppose slavery because the slaves are not accorded the same opportunity to express their preferences as the slave owners are. We should stop bullying on the playground. The cultural background of the Nazi's, the slave owners, and the bullies isn't relevant, because their background is not privileged over that of their victims.

None of this in any way undermines "Multiculturalism". In fact, I see no way to implement cultural pluralism (which is what I mean by "Multiculturalism") unless there are boundaries around acceptable behaviors. Everyone is free to practice and celebrate their cultural heritage, until it imposes one someone's else's freedom of expression or lifestyle.

Theoretically, claiming that individual human beings have worth and therefore have a claim upon the protection of their society is itself a cultural value. There are conflicts of value that can only be resolved by confrontation: these are fundamental differences, based on real differences in interests, not just on a mis-understanding. In these kinds of cases, history seems to award the memetic victory to those beliefs and practices that can attract the largest number of supporters. Appealing to all individual human beings to assert their own rights and respect those of other individuals seems to attract more supporters than any other competing value system, for rather obvious reasons if you think about it. In any interpersonal triangle where you have a person acting as an oppressor, a person acting as a victim, and one or more bystanders watching, then whoever attracts the most supporters in the audience will win the encounter.

Cultural selection is utilitarian in a sense: that belief system which delivers more value to more people will win in the long run. Right now, the "winning" belief system seems to be those humanitarian values which originated in Europe during the Enlightenment, but provided that other people in other places and times adopt them of their own free will, I can think of no reason why they should not become the default values of the entire planet.

Meanwhile, within the limits of respect for each others lifestyle choices, and the suppression of exploitation, there is a wide range of variance permitted in behavior and belief. Yet conflict still exists, because social policy has to choose just one set of outcomes to pursue. Certain values, widely accepted by themselves, can come into conflict when put into practice. Which is more important, property rights or protecting the environment? A woman's right to choose, or a fetus' right to be born? Should public schooling be mandated for all children? Can we let students wear religious clothing to school? For these kinds of choices, we rely on democratic decision making processes to choose a single option. The procedural details differ from country to country, but in general the plurality rules. So it's cultural selection again.

There is a widespread perception that cultural diversity within society is worth preserving. Homogeneity in beliefs is thought to be stagnating and at risk of failing to consider all possible solutions to social problems. Diversity is thought to not only preserve a diverse array of perspectives, which can allow a society a greater range of policy options, but the clash and exchange between different cultural communities is thought to inspire greater creativity resulting in the kinds of new ideas that drive progress.

The ideal model for a maximally competitive society appears to be semi-autonomous communities linked by strong ties of interdependence. What constitutes "acceptable" behavior in that kind of environment will be highly dynamic, changing almost constantly in response to the creative variations developed by different people in contact with each other. What we allow each other to do must be continually re-negotiated.

Nevertheless, a general rule of thumb, I think, is helpful to guide people through their inevitable confrontations. I think that if people are to work and live together they simply must have some sort of basic cultural foundation to make that possible. That means imposing something, however simple and limited, on everyone. Not just a "code of conduct", but a deeper sense of emotional connection, so that people feel they can relate to one another. Something built on a common history together, a recognized set of common goals, and an acceptance of the necessity of giving everyone some voice in the institutions of society. And most importantly, the desirability and importance of working together toward common goals.

Another thing I often notice is that many people have a certain "illusion of freedom": if most of their values are determined by their culture, they may willingly seek what the culture imposes and not see that as an oppression, even if it IS oppressive or even absurd from a more universal standpoint (maybe they see it as a useful sacrifice, in the case of people that starve themselves because of a religion, for example). I think that, even in those cases where oppression is not explicit, there should be some form of external intervention, even if it's just allowing general information to be more easily obtained within these cultures (a pseudo-paradox? "Forcing" a culture to allow freedom of thought, opening itself to other cultures)

I think that a lot of people are misguided when they advocate the "protection" of primitive cultures by keeping them as isolated from the rest of the world as possible, and never questioning their values.

edited 12th Sep '13 8:56:40 AM by Teraus