One world, many problems

We touched in class on the differences in culture between the Western and the Eastern worlds. Ramadan does a great job seeing and explaining both sides. He states,

“The movement is now on record as preferring a “civil state,” according to its spokesman Fathallah Arsalane, a statement that confirms my argument that Islamist leaders seek to distance themselves from the notion of “secularism,” seen in the Arab world as shorthand for Westernization, while steering clear of the idea of the “Islamic state,” stigmatized by its cumbersome baggage of negative connotation” (104)

Ramadan notes the Islamic view that “secularism” is “Westernization”. Muslims in this case do not want to westernize, believing it devalues them as a people. The Arab world sees flaws in western society such as our shallow civic education and fake politicians. On the other hand, westerners see an  “Islamic state” as fundamentally bad. This state had “negative connotation”, and westerners often view them as overly religious terrorists.

            There is, however, a clear recognition of this dichotomy, a fundamental step in order to combat the problem. He notes a “movement” for a “civil state”, which avoids both of the extremes and seeks a middle ground.

In theory there is room for compromise and agreement, since both the east and the west desire social justice. While I might not always agree with the policies American government implements, I can state that I am proud we make a conscious effort to maintain a minimum level of wellbeing for everyone. Islam law is similar: “The shari’a must be seen above all a call for social justice, for respect of the rights of children, women, and men to education, housing, and employment, as well as personal fulfillment and well-being” (113-114). I think both sides can agree these goals are righteous and noble.