Modern Islam... what can you say?

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Jyn
My claim was obviously partly proportional, as the US began these movements while it was still under 200 years old.

I don't think age of the country really makes a lot of difference. If anything, the US should be held to a higher standard than those countries which have X millenia of historic inertia to overcome. And where does the US stand with regards to racism? Quite poorly, for a country that wants to boast of its civil rights. Yes, there may well have been improvements, but when I visited America in July, I was stunned by how true the stories are - I'd thought it was just stereotyping for the sake of a joke. You can produce statistics till you're blue in the face about how black and white people have the same chances at education, salary, living standards, whatever; but that's actually part of the problem, because you CARE whether someone is black or white. Now, Australia is definitely not perfect either, but if you come to a place like Box Hill Central shopping center (one of the few shopping centers that I frequent - it's also a railway station and bus meeting point), you'll see people of all different walks of life, meeting, doing business (a lot of the shop owners are Asians, for some reason, but customers are of all colors and backgrounds), and nobody takes the slightest bit of notice. THAT is where things need to get to.

edit: Don't misread me here; I'm not saying the US is worse than all these other countries named. I'm just saying that if you're going to boast of racial equality, you need to have it to a greater degree than the US currently have. Good but definitely not achieved perfection.

[Riek]

Originally posted by Rilthyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...odern_timeline
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%2...#United_States
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...#United_States
Fail.

If you read the subject of this thread rather than just following the cool crowd and bashing the US, it puts things in a far different light.

The only countries remaining without suffrage are Islamic countries and the Vatican (where only Cardinals have it).

Slavery is outlawed in most countries in the world, except notably in Mauritania and Sudan which are both Islamic.

There is a whole paragraph in the segregation wiki article that talks about the continued segregation of minorities in the Middle East (predominately Islamic).

All in all, the US looks pretty good on those points when compared to modern Islam.

[Xywalan]

Originally posted by Riek
If you read the subject of this thread rather than just following the cool crowd and bashing the US, it puts things in a far different light.

The only countries remaining without suffrage are Islamic countries and the Vatican (where only Cardinals have it).

Slavery is outlawed in most countries in the world, except notably in Mauritania and Sudan which are both Islamic.

There is a whole paragraph in the segregation wiki article that talks about the continued segregation of minorities in the Middle East (predominately Islamic).

All in all, the US looks pretty good on those points when compared to modern Islam.

I do not disagree with the basic factual data (that the majority of Islamic countries have fucked up human rights conditions). I disagree with calling that Islam "modern". There is nothing Modern about it; it is the same backward culture of the 1400 years ago with little to no change. The status of women in Saudi Arabia has changed negligibly in more than 1400 years; still almost the exact same rules govern women. You cannot call something "modern" if it has not changed for more than 1400 years.

Despite this, I am very optimistic. The extremely rapid expansion of means of communication has allowed the younger generations of Muslims to catch up faster with the developed world.

[Riek]

Originally posted by Xywalan
I do not disagree with the basic factual data (that the majority of Islamic countries have fucked up human rights conditions). I disagree with calling that Islam "modern". There is nothing Modern about it; it is the same backward culture of the 1400 years ago with little to no change.

You are quite right Xywalan. I was simply refuting the off topic attack on the US, and then pointing out that the facts used to attack it actually painted some Islamic countries rather badly.

[Jidoe]

Xywalan

mod⋅ern
  /ˈmɒdərn/
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.
2. characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.

(the other definitions are not applicable here)

pro⋅gres⋅sive
  /prəˈgrɛsɪv/
–adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

(the other definitions are not applicable here)

I fail to see how present Afghanistan or any other Islamic country does not portray "modern" Islam. I think you are confusing modern with progressive.

[Xywalan]

Jidoe:

Well, if you want to do dictionary wars, I can pull out Webster:


* Main Entry: mod·ern
* Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dərn, ÷ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo just now, from modus measure — more at mete
* Date: 1585

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date
3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language
4 : of or relating to modernism : modernist

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Xywalan

2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date

This is hardly a dictionary war. However, your quote just strengthens my point. Are you trying to argue these rules in the aforementioned countries are not recent or up-to-date? (by the way, arguing the ideas are not recent is a bad argument because while they are not new, they ARE up-to-date).

[Xywalan]

Originally posted by Jidoe
This is hardly a dictionary war. However, your quote just strengthens my point. Are you trying to argue these rules in the aforementioned countries are not recent or up-to-date? (by the way, arguing the ideas are not recent is a bad argument because while they are not new, they ARE up-to-date).

This is obviously a rather pointless argument about semantics.

However, going back to the argument of semantics, by your definition everyone has modern thoughts and all the philosophies are modern as long as there is at least one living person who accepts it. To me, that makes it a pointless adjective but it is fine if you go by that definition.

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Xywalan
by your definition everyone has modern thoughts and all the philosophies are modern as long as there is at least one living person who accepts it. To me, that makes it a pointless adjective but it is fine if you go by that definition.

I think that's about how I see the word. To simplify it - in fields where there is no sound proof for true/false, right/wrong (religion, politics and even psychology and the like to a smaller extent), the word modern doesn't work. The difference in values and viewpoints make it impossible to determine that. However, the word progressive to me is the compass that points where equality and fairness reside (which is why, for example, the term "progressive tax" means a tax that takes more from the rich, in order to achieve greater equality). In exact sciences such as physics or chemistry, modern works just fine because you can actually refute old proofs as wrong (if it's of any interest to you, I recommend reading some of Karl Popper's works).

But we're digressing. Back to the issue at hand - I agree those rules are ludicrous but I am also aware they seem wrong from MY point of view. To the people of those Muslim countries it may seem like a good thing - and that's their country, where they are entitled to do whatever they want. From my recollection (and I'm not backing that up with any facts, just what logic points to), the most famous revolutions came from the people and were most effective, whereas when other countries are trying to forcefully make a change in another country, it is bound to fail. I believe the "world" is only allowed to intervene when one country is being hostile or are endangering the survival of another country.

[Xywalan]

I see what you mean but I wonder how do you describe the phenomenon of "suicide bombing"?

To me, something qualifies as modern in this context if it significantly differs from all the previous related practices or ideas.

Thus, with my definition treating women as half-men (e.g., counting the testimonies of four women equal to those of two men) is not modern since it has been practiced for centuries. Suicide bombing on the other hand is a modern phenomenon.