[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.17372833 [View]
File: 65 KB, 199x265, 340596854097845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17372833

>>17372509
No idea if Rawls wrote anything on Islam but in my amateur estimation, it's impossible square Rawlsian liberalism with Islam.

Islam and Islamic societies are total societies, in that religion supersedes politics. For the Muslim, religion occupies the realm of "naql" (revelation) while politics occupies the realm of "'aql" (reason) and Islamic theology has an interesting dynamic tension between the two. All naql are eternal, unchangeable, first principles, laws which all Muslims must follow, whether they like it or not. However, some aspects of life are either not clearly outlined or not all clarified in the divine revelation of Qur'an or the less important Hadiths and thus 'aql must be utilized to derive direction. All laws given by 'aql, must be in line with the first principles of naql (e.g. naql categorizes alcohol as sinful as it is an intoxicant. From this, 'aql can derive what other substances are sinful like marijuana).

Rawls bases his worldview that faith occupies a separate sphere divorced from the sphere of reason. First principles found by faith or ideologies are in his view, are not up to discussion in pluralistic societies and thus all politics must thoroughly be governed by practical reason which all parties can agree on. As such, the Rawls and Islam are not compatible; one believes reality is connected and is governed by a higher power whereas the other believes reality is negotiation between subjective "realities."

Note this does not mean Islamic societies can be or are necessarily "totalitarian" or "fatalistic" (although a lot of them are or seem like it today in our view). It just means Muslim are very firm in not selling out their principles and will only use complete reason in extraneous circumstances. Recall for instance, how Islam prohibits men from wearing silk yet Chinese Muslim somehow are excluded from this prohibition because 'aql determined that this particular cultural practice of silk-wearing was not in violation of naql. Or how the Mufti of Egypt completely permitted full abortions for all Bosniak women raped by Serbs during the Bosnian war, inf fear of the born "rape babies" being subjected to life-long shame and suffering which would push them to convert to Christianity and fight against Muslims.

If you're trying to find a way to marry Islam to some kind of "egalitarian" western ideology, it's better to study Heidegger or any German philosophers. I have found that Muslim are more receptive to such thinkers.

t. grew up in Muslim-Christian household

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]