What do you think about multiculturalism?

Yes that has. When they don't even know what their books say, how can you blame the books for their incompetence then?

It's the Muslims that are going against the Quran not the Quran going against the Quran. If Muslims are backwards then it means Muslims are backwards, not Islam neither Quran.

There will always be a degree of division, especially on the political front. Humans are naturally observant creatures. We're going to notice when things are different and if they're to our liking. However, despite our differences, we can work together and be civilized.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm talking about Islam in theory not Islam in practice.

I love all the responses on this topic, it's really helping me out on a short film project I'm working on!

Islam in theory exists, Islam in practice doesn't. What's being practiced in the name of Islam isn't really Islam my friend. That's my whole point.

@top_lel:

The same thing can be said about Christianity and Judaism.

@MarcRecon: Can't even blame illuminati at this point. It's just how it is. The religious folks are oblivious to their own religion, it's just kinda sad.

Your point has nothing to do with my original post. If I have to spell it out for you, the Qu'ran and most modern cultures and legal systems are incompatible.

And yes I have read it.

And it would be impossible to create a pluralistic society using the Qu'ran as a base.

The Shariah or the legal system of the Quran only works right in the proper context, you should know that too, right? you can't just outright say that Quran is incompatible or archaic. In a given social structure and in a given premise does Shariah works correctly just like any other law. The modern legal systems would've been totally irrelevant a century ago. Just like that, Quran gives you the ideal social structure you need to follow to implement Shariah.

It was possible and it is possible. All we need are the right people to implement it perfectly. Read the history of the Rashidun Caliphs and you'll see how it is possible even in the present day.

And that context is NOT the modern world. Thank you and good night.

And that's where you are wrong. Good night.

Using the Qu'ran as a base. I didn't say it was impossible for Muslims in general.

This goes back to what I said about Islam in theory and Islam in practice.

What you're trying to say is that Muslims can make their own society based on the Quran but we can't make Shariah the law of the whole world right?

I have. The degree of sexism isn't capatable with the modern world.

Ok.

This is not true at all -- Islam still holds extreme hostility towards homosexual's and this is within the mainstream not some extreme faction.

I've been through this debate a thousand times and the only outcome ever really depends on the open-mindedness of the other guy. Islam's hostility towards homosexuality is justified. How? that's a long topic, for now, you should just be content with this statement that it is justified.

Well you could if you wanted to but it would be a pretty terrible place to live.

Well, that settles it. Read the Rashidun era.

I'm familiar with the Rashidun Caliphate, what of it?

Also, pro-tip, if you're trying to defend a religion it's probably not a good idea to associate it with a empire that grew through conquest.

Read the whole era.


^
I'm familiar with that pro-tip. I would've utilized that if I was wrong to begin with.

Is there anything in particular that you want to point out about it?

Yes, and that's what you're asking for. I'll recommend reading about "Umar" Caliphate. Focus should be on:

-Treatment of minorities

-The reason of conquests

-The behavior of Muslims towards conquered lands

-The application of Shariah on the basic levels of society

-The treatment of women

-Preservation of Human rights

-Freedom of Speech

and pretty much everything.

So you think I should be impressed at the restraint used when Muslims conquered and dominated the people of the Middle East? :/

If you honestly think that women, gays, and religious minorities had something even remotely resembling equality to male Muslims in those Caliphates....I don't know what to say.

Remember what I said about Islam in theory and Islam in practice? And wasn't it you that wanted to shift the focus to what the Qu'ran says as opposed to how Muslims act on it?

totally agree

And you say all that based on what insinuations you've had from the Media or the internet?

Get over that amigo, 2 billion people in this world and I, we are not fools that we're following this seemingly 'ultra-sexist, homophobic, archaic, barbaric, misogynistic' religion. What Media or the internet tells you, might not really be the truth when the truth is that 2 billion people in this world are following this religion.

I have no idea what you're on about now. I thought we were talking about the Qu'ran....

If you honestly think that women, gays, and religious minorities had something even remotely resembling equality to male Muslims in those Caliphates....I don't know what to say.


This is what I was on about, where did you get that insinuation?

I'm observing not insinuating.

I'm getting really tired of this by the way. If you really feel the need to associate yourself with medieval Muslim societies....feel free, I don't really care.

You don't have to freaking take it personally as a muslim. All cultures in that time period were pretty awful in that regard.

That is not correct. Japan enforced a policy known as kaiken by the Tokugawa Shogunate which lasted for two hundred and twelve years, not thousands. Before then, their island location was the primary reason no outside contact had been established for generations.

As for the topic, multiculturalism can work, but people need respected boundaries. The proper scale of those boundaries depends on the individual, the family, and the culture.

Thanks for the correction. Isolated was the more appropriate word to use.

Respect and empathy are keys to a working, diverse country.

@DaX_Factor: Sure thing.

Oh yes, we know you do. And we know why you do.

How are things in Paideia? :-P

Well there is also the tension at the pubs during the World Cup, so we shouldn't forget that.

It's OK imo.

There are some cultures that should be cherished above all others. There is no room in this world for the barbaric customs of Sharia law, for instance.

Multiculturalism is in reality a farce that serves a purpose. First off you can't just lump radically different people together and expect them to get along fine, not if you want to sustain coexistence and compatibility for any considerable period of time anyway. Its hard enough getting people that share undeniably deep-rooted historical, ethnic, ideological, linguistic and other anthropological constructs to get along well with each other. Even the U.S which could be argued to be the most "multicultural" society to have ever existed in written history seems to still suffer from racial tension. The fact that states that claim to be multicultural tell people what they can or can't wear or build is proof enough of the farcical nature of the notion.

I don't think any averagely intelligent person who's also well-adjusted and self-possessed believes in multiculturalism as it is promoted and marketed to people in general. For a starter, states cannot be benevolent. Its no one's fault they just can't afford it if they want to survive and secure a decent level of overall well-being for their citizenry and the survival of the civilization itself. Bearing that in mind I often hear multiculturalism being paraded as a humanitarian and philanthropist concept which is just absurd and flat out deceitful. Multiculturalism is mostly a necessary evil that some societies cannot do without. Most if not all of the states adopting a multicultural approach for the maintenance of their societies suffer from declining populations. You can't really force people to procreate; I don't know how you would go about doing this and it would prove itself to be self-defeating anyway. Those states that decide to face this reality and swallow their pride start taking in people from abroad to make up for that decline. A multicultural approach to equalize the decline in the populace is the best available option because what it does is that it makes sure that no foreign nationality, ethnicity, religious group or any other alien entity would gain a disproportionate representation in the society. As such, the native population and their culture or civilization do not run the risk of being taken over by that foreign entity. So basically you're offsetting the decline through multiple minorities. This scheme is admittedly the one that ensures the preservation of the status quo the longest but these minorities won't remain minorities forever. They will continue to increase in numbers until society finds itself divided equally between groups that are alien to each other.
States that refuse to face reality and cling to national pride end up like Japan where the highest ranking official speaks of cleansing society of the elderly that seem to be making up half of the population.

If you're so fond of multiculturalism, then why do we never hear you clamoring for its implementation in Israel?

I like how multiculturalism and Islam are now closely related topics. I skimmed through the replies in this topic and somehow Islam kept cropping up over and over again.

cheers to the western media

LMAO. First, you obviously don't know a thing about my posting history wrt to Israel. Second, do I need to make 200+ posts so that I address every country on the topic of multiculturalism?

So much wrong with your post. First, you imply someone is advocating lumping radically different people together overnight, which is a strawman.

Next you violate the law of identity with an equivocation: either the example of people sharing historical, linguistic, ethnic, ideological, and anthropological constructs means they are substantially the same, in which case they are not a multicultural population, or they are a multicultural population that does not share those same attributes beyond a superficial comparison at best. It cannot be both.

Then you state a false generalization regarding what can and cannot be done regarding dress and construction in multicultural states.

And that is just the first paragraph.

The Ferguson riots aren't really a good example of multiculturalism - it's more like racial tension. It's not like Michael Brown was from Africa or from a different culture - he lived in the same place and belonged to the same culture as the cop that shot him. Multiculturalism clearly works, the only thing that gets lost is the culture and traditions of our past, which is important to some but not to others. Give it 100 years and I guarantee not much will be remembered about tradition and culture as we once knew it.

How can the naturalization of people who differ from the native population racially, ethnically, religiously, or however else solve the problem created by the low fertility rate of said native population (i.e. the increase in representation of foreign entities in the natives' society) when said naturalization actually facilitates that problem? Most immigrants maintain ties to their original culture and principles and do not conform to those of the native population. In a nutshell, most of your post makes no sense, though it all reads (seemingly) very intelligently.

Why do I like it then?

Never heard of this Paideia before.