is multi-culturalism dead?

[yingers74]

Am not any good at doing links but won't try. Have read a lot of articles including the original (before the bombs) by Trevor Philips(I think, could be wrong) who thought the multi-cultural model had failed. What do people think?

Yingers, why are you scared? Is this the kind of thread that people have been talking about? It's not nasty, is it? They are challenging..sorry, difficult!

monkey - was referring to other thread, but I think peace has broken out! Though the spot behind the sofa is so comfy now!

I won't ask which one, as theres too many about at the mo. I can't keep up!

"If muslim women freely choose do wear those clothes fine - but can they make a free choice or will their fathers/ brothers / husbands beat/ kill them if they want to do anything else? I'm afriad we need a lot of convincing that women freely choose such things."

Free!

Who defines freedom, and how much freedom do you think is enough, and on what grounds?

Why is there pressure on young men and women to get a gf or bf?

Why is there pressure to drink alcohol?

Why the pressure to go dancing?

In Islam, dressing modestly is incumbent upon both males and females.

Why this preoccupation with what mankind today thinks is correct, and running down of those who believe God not only created, but also laid down some laws:

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife
...

why does it have to be a man-made law to be obeyed. Arrogance of man, again.

I am sure we have all read of Sodom, and what befell it. Anyone read the archeological finds?

And do you know what Pompeii was?

Sharia is mistaken for laws enforced by the Talebaan and the Saudis. It is more a bind on the rulers, and the reason the West is livable is that it has borrowed the principles of social justice from Islam, whereas the traditionally Muslim societies have fallen in the trap of legal binds.

I personally would not wish to live in any country under religious law. As a woman and someone who values her right to freedom of mind without fear of reprisal. If you don't live in generally the capital city of a Muslim country then you have no choice but to conform to wearing facial and body covering, like it or lump it.

The difference in how a man and woman are expected to dress modestly is quite vastly different.

Zainab Salbi: Women's Rights and Islamic Law in the New Iraq Constitution
or news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050801/cmhuffpost/004923;_ylt=AugZung2n_yV8zCBqtZ2kSwd6sgF;ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Zainab Salbi says: In the last 13 years, I have worked exclusively with women in post-conflict regions, from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Afghanistan, from Colombia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The time after conflict provides women with a window of opportunity to redress past inequities and expand women?s rights. I have concluded that to build stronger nations you need to build stronger women, from the grassroots up. Countries overcoming war and conflict have shown that when women are protected and engaged as full citizens in a country, the entire country fares better.

Also I feel he makes an important point about language and misinterpretation between cultures (the example here being Western and Islamic): ...the words ?secular? and ?religious? are viewed and interpreted differently in Iraq than here. For many Iraqis, the Arabic translation of ?secular? is atheism, a concept that is not culturally acceptable.

Peacedove, your questions are so broad as to be unanswerable. not really sure what we're discussing anymore. What's your point about about Sodom and Pompeii?

PeaceDove, you seem to feel your beliefs are alienated. Why? I don't feel that. No-one has criticized my beliefs here, debated yes but I welcome that, otherwise I wouldn't come on. I sahre the same religious rules with you, albeit with a different take on the whole thing (I am a Christian).

I don't think many of us would argue either that so many of the pressures on young people today are unfair (though frankly I wish someone would pressurize me to go dancing with them- a harmless activity!). But it is no fairer if the pressure comes from members of a religious community than from magazines etc.

Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery..

And thou shalt not be killed by stoning to death even if thou didst commit adultery, because God is forgiveness and sin is Human.

"Thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife"

Well why on earth would I do that? I'm part of the 50% of humanity which isn't being talked to in that commandment.

Yes I know the qurun requires both sexes to be modest. When muslim men wear the hijab I will be readier to believe it is a free choice

As for pressure to do things against your faith -if anyone is physcially trying to force you do to this things we have laws to prevent that. If, however, you refer only to moral pressure - God tests believers, I am not God to answer your question.

You want to live under Sharia law but we see how that is interpreted and we don't want it. Sharia law is NOT part of your religion, it comes not from God but from those who corrupt your faith for their own reasons.

papillon - you raise some interesting points.

However, your calim that the word "secular" means "atheist" to an Iraqi is simply not true.
For one thing there are thousands of Iraqis who are NOT Muslims at all. Iraq has a Christian as well a very old Jewish population (as do most other Middle Eastern countries that are predominantly Muslim). In Iran Christians and Jews are allowed to vote for their own parliamentary candidates (this is enshrined in the Iranisn Constitution).

There are thousands of Iraqi's who would like to see the separation of Islam from the Iraqi State.

In fact I have asked an Arab Muslim friend of mine what "secular" means in Arabic. The word is "Elhadi". Although it is true that to a devote Muslim the word may have connotations of being an "unbeliever" this is not true of all Iraqis or Muslims.

Most of my Muslim friends see themselves as "secular". And I am not just talking about Arabs. I am including my Iranian, Turkish and Afghani friends. They may just represent a minority, but the fact that they exist is significant for the future of that region.

The word "Elhadi" is not a dirty word to Arabs. It simply means what the word secular means to us in the Anglo-Saxon world - someone who desires or believes in the separation of the State from the Mosque.

In fact there have been such political movements throughout the history of Islam.

One of the most important of these secular movements in the Muslim world at the moment is in Iran, a country which is widely said to have begun the Islamic "fundamnetalist" movement with its Revolution in 1978. Iran has a long and distinguished history of Constitutionalism dating back to the C19th. In fact Iran has the oldest "Communist Party" in Asia (before there were Communist Parties in Russia or China in fact !!).

I am always amased at the way in which Muslim countries are bundled togther as one Arab, Middle Eastern homogenous mass. This simply is not the case. The largest Muslim country (in terms of population - 120 mil people) in the world is Indonesia. It is no where near the Middle East and it is not Arab. Iranians, Turks and Afghans are not Arabs. These countries do not speak Arabic. Another important distinction both in terms of religion and in terms of politics is the Sunni, Shia divide.

Arabic is the language of their common religion, as Latin once used to be to Christains and as Hebrew is to the Jews.

Sorry, if all this is off the point a bit. But they are just a side note to those discussing Islam here ! I think it is important not to make grand generalistion as though all Muslim countries are one and the same. That would be as silly as claiming that all Christain countries are one and the same.

The link I posted has expired... the part about secular was from Zainab Salbi's article. So we had better contact him and tell him to become a MNetter

Thanks for the post most interesting discussion, but no time to post right now! But have friends who are Palenstinian CChristians so realise it is not the same flavour belief wise.

papillon - one other point. The facial covering you refer to is not an Islamic invention. It is laos not true that those in rural Muslim countries must all wear facial coverings. I have travelled in rural parts of several Muslim countries and this simply is not the case. Facial coverings (and often tatooing the face) are used in some of the Arab Gulf countries (and more recently the burgha in Afghanistan was enforecd by the Taliban but was not widely used before the Taliban) these are "tribal" tradituions dating back to their PRE-Islamic traditional dress.

In fact I read an interesting piece of historical research done by some woman, sorry I forget her name. She said that Muslims had in fact picked up the idea of facial covering to preserve a woman's "modesty" from Orthodox Greek women (I think during the time that Mohammed was still alive or afterwards) who also covered their faces !!

ps - "Zainab" is a woman's name, or is he a man and using a woman's name

does pressure have to be physical?

No one forces you to live under the sharia. In an Islamic society, you wouldn't be required to cover your face. However, there would be a requirement to be modestly covered.

There is a difference between equality and sameness. You don't have to dress same as to be equal.

There are people who have hijacked the sharia, and their hold is in place for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, sharia requires equality of rulers and the ruled. A concept that has been admirably incorporated in the West, although it also has ups and downs, and there are varying degrees of its implementation.

Then in sharia there are extenuating circumstances, so breaking laws does not automatically carry the maximum prescribed penalty, although I agree that in many instances miscarriage of sharia laws is happening.

Christians may believe that God is all Love, but we believe He is also Just, although His Mercy encompasses all and everything.

I didn't understand at first, but I can see now why Messrs Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair and the previous US and UK administrations haven't been worried about God being Just. They think murdering Iraqi civilains through bombing, and mining Iraq with DU won't cause them any discomfort in the Hereafter.

We believe otherwise.

Sodom and Pompeii

Ubar and Petra

and many cities and civilisations before us.

They violated God's laws, and transgressed so far as to have ben wiped out.

That is the significance.

tatt - like you I don't approve of Sharia Law and would not wish to live under it either.

I agree that Sharia Law as strictly applied in countries like Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the kind of "law" which Mohammed (and most certainly not Ali, if you go by his writings) would have wished applied in all cases.

But put into historial perspective the God of Sharia is not very different to the God of the Old Testament (as opposed to the God of the New Testament who seems to be a different "God" all together ??) - "an eye for an eye" and all that ?

My reading of the Old Testament tells me that the God of the Old Testament seems very much to be the "God of Revenge" rather than the "God of Forgiveness".

I think that the very slow, but increasing desire for secularisation in most Muslim countries will eradicate Sharia Law. Afterall it is only applied very strictly in just a few Muslim countries at the moment.

In Muslim countries that have a strong secular movement, like Iran, there is ALWAYS a very public outcry by Human Rights Lawyers and bodies, in the liberal newspapers and websites that do exist whenever Sharia Law is applied, i.e. public executions of homosexual, prostitutes, those under 18, etc.

Muslims are not silent lamb !!

Peacedove - this is slightly off the point but what would you ultimately like to see happen to this country and others? I mean in terms of future political structure.

And again completely and utterly off the point, at uni a friend of mine talked of the Ottoman empire being a shining example of how all could live under islamic rule. My history is not strong on this region at all so can anyone tell me whether this is accurate and what happened to bring its downfall?

All civilisations fall at some point and i don't really think it has anything to do with god, sorry peacedove.

Secularisation, indeed

Saddam was secular
so was Nasser
and the lovely Shah of Iran

there have been countless secular Muslim leaders

in fact, when the colonial powers handed over their token power to the natives, they made sure it was the secular elite that inherited the power.

and what have they brought the Ummah to?

I was just about to echo that Yingers; all things come to dust.

Peachskin, you're right about the old testament.

You've missed out Attaturk.

What I would like to see is all humanity to live in peace under God's law on this Earth, and earn eternal peace in the Hereafter.

That isn't realistic, Satan will have his share, you know

So what I would then like in this country is to have the truths explored without prejudice, so that who want to accept eternal peace can do so without hindrance.

The Ottomans created a system whereby each community lived by its own laws. It wasn't all peaceful always, and they had to be cruel at times. Also, it was a hereditary Empire, not a "Rightly Guided Caliphate", so it wasn't exemplary.

The examplary rule was during the prophet (saw) and the rightly guided Caliphs. There have been instances of that in later years.

But again that is a tall order. Reading the Guardian and the Observer, and participating in the marches gives us a false idea that that the population is sick of adventurism and militarism, but when it comes to the vote, the murderous elite still gets in with a comfortable majority.

And in both the US and UK.

And the suffering at the hands of tyrants and despots continues,

as does struggle for freedom.

What would I like?

A politics where morality rules, not our bank balances, or our comforts.

Allah loves His creation more than 99 times tha mothers love their only children. So He forgives, if one repents, and one doesn't have to "confess" to be forgiven. One prays to God, and asks for forgiveness.

The prophet (saw) told us of a murderer who had murdered 99 people, and then he was worried, and sought a priest and asked him if Allah will forgive him, although he had 99 murders to account for. The priest said, no. So the man killed him too.

Dejected that he had no salvation, he was on his way, and found a man of God, and asked him the same question. He answered that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, and he would inshaalah be forgiven.

But to stay on the course of righteousnes, he should leave the area where he had lived a sinful life, and go to a place (that he named) where pous people lived. Living with them, he would have little temptation to go astray.

The man started towards the place of the righteous, but on his way, death overcame him, and he died.

Two angels came to take his soul away. One said the man had repented and the proof was that he was on his way to the land of the pious. The other said, no he had died a sinful man, and he should be carried way to be punished.

It was decided to measure the distance between the man's body and the two places. Whichever was nearest would determine the destination of the man's soul.

Allah ordered the distance between the body and the righteous to contract, and the distance between the body and his previous sinful abode to expand.

The distance of the former was shorter, and the man's soul was saved.

Civilisations fail, but why?

peacedove - I think you miss the point. All of the regimes you mention were "secular", true, however, they were dictatorships not democracies: Saddam, the Shah, Attaturk, Nasser.

These are not the sort of regimes that the people I am talking about aspire to. Also they see Islamic Governmnet of any form or style as yet another form of tyranny, one imposed by Mullahs or Imams, rather than by Kings and Dictators.

That is not the kind of secularisation that the new generation of Middle Eastern and non-Middle Eastern Muslims who want a secular society are after though is it ? No Iranian, Egyptian, Iraqi or Turk who wants democracy and a secular society (who has real understanding of his county's history and politics) is asking for those guys back, is he (or she) ??

There are a few say Iranians and Turks who think that the Shah and Attaturk were fantastic and wish to resurrect them, but they are in the looney fringes !! The new generation of liberals in those countries do not take them seriously.

Peacedove - you obviously have a strong belief in Islam. But the tide will turn one day, as it did in Europe and elsewhere in the world, when those who want rule by the Church (or Mosque in this case) will become a very small minority indeed.

The struggle that is going on the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world is not very different for the struggle that we had here in Europe to stop religion from meddling in politics.

I know that nothing in politics is "inevitable" - but I am quite happy to put my money where my mouth is on this one

secular democracies

What is the US, if not a secular democracy?

and Britain, too.

what have they been doing?

and I can assure you, France has its share of explotation and murderous activities.

And this is today. Read the history of the secular Western democracies and what they have been doing to the ex-colonies.

Oh, I agree that secular democracies have so far refrained from large-scale murders within thier own lands.

But have they?

India is the largest secular democracy.

Peacedove, you write with the clarity of a true philosopher. No civilisation is free from exploitation and murderous impulses. Forgive me if I'm missing your point, but I'm struggling to get a focus now.

If I may ask a different question though. What is you opinion of Iran's nuclear program?

monkeytrousers - is the qusetion addressed to peacedove or all of us ?