The Quran may in part be from earlier source according to Tom Holland

[siam]

And, according to some atheist philosophers, that's nonsense. How would you suggest I decide which philosophers are more likely correct?

This is the most important question (IMO) what is correct and what is error....so...
The first question about "true" (as opposed to illusion) builds a premise upon which all other presumptions follow....therefore, the presumption is that there is a greater, singular, "Reality" that all humanity inhabit...even though our personal experience of our reality may be diverse...for example, the environment, cultures, and circumstances of an Eskimo in the Arctic and a Bedouin in the Desert will be different---but the Greater "Reality" that they both inhabit is the same/singular.
Therefore, the worldviews/paradigms, ethico-moral habits, laws,...etc will necessarily have some differences between that of an Eskimo and that of a Bedouin....so how do we distinguish correct from error? In Islam it is understood through the principles of Tawheed (Unity)---correct and Shirk (Division)---incorrect. So, it is not the "label" of a philosophy or idea that makes it correct or error---it is the content and this needs to be evaluated according to the principles of Tawheed/Shirk....any idea that promotes balance and harmony that leads to mutual respect, sharing and co-operation is correct---that which leads to egoic tribalism, selfishness and arrogance is an error. Within the diversity of Islam (religion)---this criteria can be applied to understand which ways/ideas are an error (Tribalistic) and which ways/ideas are correct(Pluralistic).
However, it is not enough to consider an idea correct/error for our own generation---principles need consistency across generations---and this is wisdom.

[Doug Shaver]

The first question about "true" (as opposed to illusion) builds a premise upon which all other presumptions follow....

First: Questions don't build premises.

Second: What follows from any premise is not a presumption. It is an inference. Inferences can be premises, but they cannot be presumptions.

[siam]

First: Questions don't build premises.

Second: What follows from any premise is not a presumption. It is an inference. Inferences can be premises, but they cannot be presumptions.

Thanks for the corrections....to clarify,.....
1) What I meant to refer to by "first question"---were the 3 questions I initially posed and the subsequent answers (from an Islamic perspective)---this was meant to continue that conversation.....
2) I used "presumption" because the concept of Tawheed (Unity) is itself a starting point for the ethico-moral principles and paradigm in Islam....it is from this assumption that other principles follow....however, if the term "inference" is preferable, I am fine with that....
(The concepts of "Reality" and Tawheed are equivalent because both in essence refer to "One God")

With ISIS and Wahabism...I am also struggling with defining what is "True", what is correct/error, what are consistent/wholistic principles...etc...so the question about how to know what is 'true" was particularly relevant to my own thoughts....

With ISIS, it is easy to define error---their actions are clearly criminal---but, IMO, Wahabism requires a more nuanced approach.... Shuny had previously commented that there are problems with "Modern Islam"...it is an interesting point but how to articulate the "problems" without falling into the trap of tribalism? (my ideas are better than yours---because I say so)....I do not have a well formed response to this point yet...

[Doug Shaver]

1) What I meant to refer to by "first question"---were the 3 questions I initially posed and the subsequent answers (from an Islamic perspective)---this was meant to continue that conversation.....

OK. I'll go back to those questions.

How would you define "true" ?

There is no noncircular definition. We have to assume that we all mean the same thing when we use the word.

what makes any "idea" (ideas are an abstraction) "true" ?

Truth is a property of statements. If the idea expressed by a statement corresponds to reality, then it is a true statement. If it does not so correspond, then it is not a true statement.

would you say "wisdom" (timeless truths) exist? (for ex---do unto others as you would have them do unto you....)

I do not equate wisdom with truths, timeless or otherwise. Wisdom is the defining characteristic of wise people. Wise people do exist.

[siam]

OK. I'll go back to those questions.


There is no noncircular definition. We have to assume that we all mean the same thing when we use the word.


Truth is a property of statements. If the idea expressed by a statement corresponds to reality, then it is a true statement. If it does not so correspond, then it is not a true statement.


I do not equate wisdom with truths, timeless or otherwise. Wisdom is the defining characteristic of wise people. Wise people do exist.

Reality/reality---(vs illusion)....If we are speaking of "truth" in the context of reality/illusion---then, it is fairly easy to define for those matters that are physical because we can use methods and instruments that uncover supporting evidence---the physical can be observed, measured...etc.....The metaphysical (abstract) is more difficult....and here one has to rely on intuition backed by reason.

Is there a difference between "Religion" and superstition? If we claim one is correct and the other is error---then on what basis/principle can one premise this on, that can be consistently applied throughout time on all (abstract) ideas? (from the Quranic perspective, there is a difference)

If we are to begin to make any sense of these concerns---we need to begin with the assumption that there is a "Consistent Reality"---one that is an encompassing and singular "Reality" which we all inhabit---even though our personal experiences of our particular micro-circumstances may be diverse. This abstract concept of a "Greater Reality" can have different labels---such as "Nature", Tian li, Dao, God...etc...Its an abstract idea that ties together the micro-circumstances into a consistent, cohesive whole, that our intellect can make sense of.

Perhaps this video will explain it better than I can....?.....

[Doug Shaver]

Reality/reality---(vs illusion)....If we are speaking of "truth" in the context of reality/illusion---then, it is fairly easy to define for those matters that are physical because we can use methods and instruments that uncover supporting evidence---the physical can be observed, measured...etc.....The metaphysical (abstract) is more difficult....and here one has to rely on intuition backed by reason.

I believe you are conflating definition with confirmation. It is easy to confirm (or disconfirm) statements about physical reality just because physical reality can be observed, measured, etc. That is not the case for statements about metaphysical reality. The difference has nothing to do with what truth is and everything to do with how we know what is true.

Perhaps this video will explain it better than I can....?.....

I'm sorry, but I saw nothing in the video that was obviously relevant to what we've been discussing.

[shunyadragon]

Reality/reality---(vs illusion)....If we are speaking of "truth" in the context of reality/illusion---then, it is fairly easy to define for those matters that are physical because we can use methods and instruments that uncover supporting evidence---the physical can be observed, measured...etc.....The metaphysical (abstract) is more difficult....and here one has to rely on intuition backed by reason.

Is there a difference between "Religion" and superstition? If we claim one is correct and the other is error---then on what basis/principle can one premise this on, that can be consistently applied throughout time on all (abstract) ideas? (from the Quranic perspective, there is a difference)

If we are to begin to make any sense of these concerns---we need to begin with the assumption that there is a "Consistent Reality"---one that is an encompassing and singular "Reality" which we all inhabit---even though our personal experiences of our particular micro-circumstances may be diverse. This abstract concept of a "Greater Reality" can have different labels---such as "Nature", Tian li, Dao, God...etc...Its an abstract idea that ties together the micro-circumstances into a consistent, cohesive whole, that our intellect can make sense of.

Perhaps this video will explain it better than I can....?.....

I believe in God and that religion is natural to human nature, but I also realize that from an objective basis of the evidence this is not a basis for determining any religion nor the existence of God is true.

[siam]

I believe in God and that religion is natural to human nature, but I also realize that from an objective basis of the evidence this is not a basis for determining any religion nor the existence of God is true.

lets keep existence (or not) of God aside for the moment...and assume that the "metaphysical" is natural to human nature. If we take commonality/universality of human nature (=objective)---that being "human" necessitates certain common basic characteristics, then any metaphysics/paradigms we build are an outcome of this common human nature. Such paradigms need not be theistic---for example, "nationalism" is a paradigm that puts the nation and its symbols and rituals as unifying identity markers and excludes those as "others" that do not belong. So, which "National" paradigm is correct and which is error? There has to be a more unbiased way of determining this question than simply---I am X therefore my nation is the best.... there is cultural tribalism such as "I am Western/Eastern so my culture/civilization is better/successful/progressive...etc than yours"...type of subjectivity....there must be a more universal way to determine correct/error across the many types of paradigms we form.....?....

[shunyadragon]

lets keep existence (or not) of God aside for the moment...and assume that the "metaphysical" is natural to human nature. If we take commonality/universality of human nature (=objective)---that being "human" necessitates certain common basic characteristics, then any metaphysics/paradigms we build are an outcome of this common human nature.

OK

Such paradigms need not be theistic---for example, "nationalism" is a paradigm that puts the nation and its symbols and rituals as unifying identity markers and excludes those as "others" that do not belong. So, which "National" paradigm is correct and which is error?

Western Democracies have history of being stable and functioning better in the contemporary world than others, but this only has relative value and all countries have a history moral faults, and indeterminate as far as the issues of spiritual beliefs, and religions.

There has to be a more unbiased way of determining this question than simply---I am X therefore my nation is the best.... there is cultural tribalism such as "I am Western/Eastern so my culture/civilization is better/successful/progressive...etc than yours"...type of subjectivity....there must be a more universal way to determine correct/error across the many types of paradigms we form.....?....

Actually I do not believe that there is an unbiased way from the human perspective, as to which of best or better. Though there are many that are clearly terrible, violent and abusive, and at the bottom of the pile.

As far as a spiritual standard I will go with the Baha'i Faith for providing guidance for governance of nations and the world.

Source: (Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i-Maqsúd)

It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

It is self-evident that humanity is at variance. Human tastes differ; thoughts, native lands, races and tongues are many. The need of a collective center by which these differences may be counterbalanced and the people of the world be unified is obvious. Consider how nothing but a spiritual power can bring about this unification, for material conditions and mental aspects are so widely different that agreement and unity are not possible through outer means. It is possible, however, for all to become unified through one spirit, just as all may receive light from one sun. Therefore, assisted by the collective and divine center which is the law of God and the reality of His Manifestation, we can overcome these conditions until they pass away entirely and the races advance.

© Copyright Original Source

[siam]

OK

Western Democracies have history of being stable and functioning better in the contemporary world than others, but this only has relative value and all countries have a history moral faults, and indeterminate as far as the issues of spiritual beliefs, and religions.



Actually I do not believe that there is an unbiased way from the human perspective, as to which of best or better. Though there are many that are clearly terrible, violent and abusive, and at the bottom of the pile.

As far as a spiritual standard I will go with the Baha'i Faith for providing guidance for governance of nations and the world.

Source: (Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i-Maqsúd)

It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

It is self-evident that humanity is at variance. Human tastes differ; thoughts, native lands, races and tongues are many. The need of a collective center by which these differences may be counterbalanced and the people of the world be unified is obvious. Consider how nothing but a spiritual power can bring about this unification, for material conditions and mental aspects are so widely different that agreement and unity are not possible through outer means. It is possible, however, for all to become unified through one spirit, just as all may receive light from one sun. Therefore, assisted by the collective and divine center which is the law of God and the reality of His Manifestation, we can overcome these conditions until they pass away entirely and the races advance.

© Copyright Original Source

We can overcome these conditions---There may be a problem with the translation or interpretation---but as I understand it---this refers to overcoming the differences mentioned---if so, I would disagree....the attempt to attain unity through homogenization is a problem of "Modernity" and the erasure of identity-constructs goes against human nature/human needs. This then causes a rebellion that encourages paradigms with strong identity-constructs and tribalism---for ex Wahabi....as well as Far Right, Religio-Nationalists, and others.....The simplest way to build identity-cohesion is through constructing "the other" that is an opposite/mirror image of everything one finds problematic. A more sophisticated way is to devise systems of ethico-moral principles and values that build a culture/civilization on its own merits without requiring a scapegoat/enemy. The best way is when such sophisticated cultures/identity-constructs have the spiritual maturity to respect others as they respect themselves (reciprocity)---so that human dignity is built into/inherent to their systems/constructs.

As I see it...When Europe began its colonization project---it erased the laws, languages, customs and identity of the local peoples and attempted to replace it with "European" norms and values by claiming these were "superior"/more civilized/"Modern"....Post-colonialism created groups that attempted to reclaim these lost/forgotten identity-constructs---often intertwined with ethno-racial or national identity-constructs....but these identity-constructs were "Modern"---that is, they, in turn, tried to homogenize a whole nation-state in order to "unite". In a democracy, this means that a homogenized majority is required in order for that group to retain political/cultural hegemony/power. (That is why, in some Modern Democracies, the changing racial/ethnic/religious demographics can create push-back---because this causes the power structures of privilege and entitlement to change....)
Wahabism---a "Modern" identity-construct, is sometimes accused of "Arabizing" Islam....creating tensions within Islam.
Hegemony and the use of a "majority" voting block to retain power can be seen more clearly in the machinations of power in Modern Indian history:---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJ6oBENENo
The video is about A. Roy explaining how a group identity was contested because a Hindu majority was needed in order to create a power base. This large voting block of people were recast/re-identified as "Hindu" so that India could remain a majority "Hindu" nation....
The immigration issue in Western Democracies can be linked to this dynamics as well---the demographic changes also potentially create changes in the power structures because of the nature of this political system....

Perhaps, in a Post-Modern, Global era, we need to rethink our philosophical, political, and ethico-moral structures and identity-constructs so that mutual respect and dignity can be encouraged in a way that promotes and protects diversity within a framework of an inherent Unity/brotherhood of all humanity. Such a framework will not conflict with human nature as we are both collective/social as well as individual/identity-conscious.

Insofar as humanity has commonalities (common nature)---there will also be a general principle/wisdom that is common to all cultures/peoples across time....because these principles/wisdom is built on the basis of a timeless commonality in our humanity. In Islam its called Tawheed, Confucious called it the principle of reciprocity, Africans call it Ubuntu, others may call it the Brotherhood of humanity or Bani Adam (Children of Adam)...etc....

[siam]

Western Democracies do not have a history of being "stable"---there have been violent contentions ---revolving around identity, soverignity/autonomy...etc.....U.S. civil war, Basque separatists, FARC, IRA, and so on...

[shunyadragon]

We can overcome these conditions---There may be a problem with the translation or interpretation---but as I understand it---this refers to overcoming the differences mentioned---if so, I would disagree....the attempt to attain unity through homogenization is a problem of "Modernity" and the erasure of identity-constructs goes against human nature/human needs.

This not remotely what the Baha'i Faith proposes. Your obsession with 'scapegoat' of a bizzaro unrealistic concept of "modernity" is a self imposed illusion. The contemporary Western world does embrace 'diversity,' which the Islamic world does not, which in part lies at the root of why Islam today is not a religion of peace.

This then causes a rebellion that encourages paradigms with strong identity-constructs and tribalism---for ex Wahabi....as well as Far Right, Religio-Nationalists, and others.....The simplest way to build identity-cohesion is through constructing "the other" that is an opposite/mirror image of everything one finds problematic. A more sophisticated way is to devise systems of ethico-moral principles and values that build a culture/civilization on its own merits without requiring a scapegoat/enemy. The best way is when such sophisticated cultures/identity-constructs have the spiritual maturity to respect others as they respect themselves (reciprocity)---so that human dignity is built into/inherent to their systems/constructs.

The bold above is close to what the Baha'i Faith proposes, which is what Islam fails to do.

As I see it...When Europe began its colonization project---it erased the laws, languages, customs and identity of the local peoples and attempted to replace it with "European" norms and values by claiming these were "superior"/more civilized/"Modern"....Post-colonialism created groups that attempted to reclaim these lost/forgotten identity-constructs---often intertwined with ethno-racial or national identity-constructs....but these identity-constructs were "Modern"---that is, they, in turn, tried to homogenize a whole nation-state in order to "unite". In a democracy, this means that a homogenized majority is required in order for that group to retain political/cultural hegemony/power. (That is why, in some Modern Democracies, the changing racial/ethnic/religious demographics can create push-back---because this causes the power structures of privilege and entitlement to change....)

These problems are amplified in the Islamic world.

Wahabism---a "Modern" identity-construct, is sometimes accused of "Arabizing" Islam....creating tensions within Islam.
Hegemony and the use of a "majority" voting block to retain power can be seen more clearly in the machinations of power in Modern Indian history:---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJ6oBENENo
The video is about A. Roy explaining how a group identity was contested because a Hindu majority was needed in order to create a power base. This large voting block of people were recast/re-identified as "Hindu" so that India could remain a majority "Hindu" nation....
The immigration issue in Western Democracies can be linked to this dynamics as well---the demographic changes also potentially create changes in the power structures because of the nature of this political system....

As I said before, I do not endorse any form of 'Nationalism,' but you cannot scapegoat the West, your bizzaro view of "Modernism." for the fractious problems in the Islamic world, and the failure of the Islamic world to embrace cultural and religious diversity.

Perhaps, in a Post-Modern, Global era, we need to rethink our philosophical, political, and ethico-moral structures and identity-constructs so that mutual respect and dignity can be encouraged in a way that promotes and protects diversity within a framework of an inherent Unity/brotherhood of all humanity. Such a framework will not conflict with human nature as we are both collective/social as well as individual/identity-conscious.

That is what the Baha'i Faith proposes, and absent in Islam

Insofar as humanity has commonalities (common nature)---there will also be a general principle/wisdom that is common to all cultures/peoples across time....because these principles/wisdom is built on the basis of a timeless commonality in our humanity. In Islam its called Tawheed, Confucious called it the principle of reciprocity, Africans call it Ubuntu, others may call it the Brotherhood of humanity or Bani Adam (Children of Adam)...etc....

OK, but not remotely present in the Islamic world today. There is no attempt for 'reciprocity' in Islamic countries today, and in non-Islamic countries Islamic cultures are mostly socially isolationist.

It remains to be a Baha'i is punishable by death and prison in most Islamic countries. The same punishment and worse is for Muslims converting to another belief.

[siam]

This not remotely what the Baha'i Faith proposes. Your obsession with 'scapegoat' of a bizzaro unrealistic concept of "modernity" is a self imposed illusion. The contemporary Western world does embrace 'diversity,' which the Islamic world does not, which in part lies at the root of why Islam today is not a religion of peace.

As I said before, I do not endorse any form of 'Nationalism,' but you cannot scapegoat the West, your bizzaro view of "Modernism." for the fractious problems in the Islamic world, and the failure of the Islamic world to embrace cultural and religious diversity.

That is what the Baha'i Faith proposes, and absent in Islam

OK, but not remotely present in the Islamic world today. There is no attempt for 'reciprocity' in Islamic countries today, and in non-Islamic countries Islamic cultures are mostly socially isolationist.

It remains to be a Baha'i is punishable by death and prison in most Islamic countries. The same punishment and worse is for Muslims converting to another belief.

Diversity in Democracy---No it does not embrace diversity fully---only conditionally---and the condition is that minorities "integrate/assimilate" to the "powerful" (majority or the most vocal minority that is populist)...and it does not matter what the religion is, Buddhist-majority nations, Hindu-majority nations, Muslim majority nations, Christian majority nations ...all have the same problem. Even in the U.S. diversity is superficial---because public/civic discussions cannot bring religious values into the debates---religion has to be hidden and arguments for or against a proposal have to be made in "non-religious"/"secular" language....in other words---people are encouraged to be hypocrites...

Modernity---it is possible that we both have biases---we need to explore further to determine what is the "reality".
So, as a Bahai---what is your solution to vocal, sometimes violent voices of the religio-nationalists, far right...and other such exclusive identity-constructs? I will be disappointed if you advocate that the solution is that everyone should become a Bahai---sameness is NOT diversity....

[shunyadragon]

Diversity in Democracy---No it does not embrace diversity fully---only conditionally---and the condition is that minorities "integrate/assimilate" to the "powerful" (majority or the most vocal minority that is populist)...and it does not matter what the religion is, Buddhist-majority nations, Hindu-majority nations, Muslim majority nations, Christian majority nations ...all have the same problem. Even in the U.S. diversity is superficial---because public/civic discussions cannot bring religious values into the debates---religion has to be hidden and arguments for or against a proposal have to be made in "non-religious"/"secular" language....in other words---people are encouraged to be hypocrites...

Yes, all the nations you cite have very fallible human problems that lack contemporary spiritual principles to deal with their religio-nationalism.

I will definitely argue against your assertion the the diversiity of western nations is superficial. It is not perfect, of course, because of the fallibility of human nature, and unfortunate religio-nationalist under current. On the other hand, as a matter of fact, most Islamic countries do not allow anything close to the diversity encouraged in the West. In fact, in most Islamic countries the populations of minority believers is decreasing due to increased intolerance to these minorities.

Your idealistic bias of your judgement of modern western countries lacks objectivity concerning the total failure of most Islamic countries to endorse diversity, and even demand by law that minorities follow Islamic customs.

Hypocrisy is a human problem we will always have to deal with and should not be used as a scapegoat, when at present most religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are teaching and advocating religio-nationalist beliefs the Baha'i Faith does not teach,

Modernity---it is possible that we both have biases---we need to explore further to determine what is the "reality".

Your acrid one sided accusations of Modernity do not take into consideration of the fallible nature of humanity through history, and do not take into consideration the problems of extreme religio-nationalism in Islam today, and it is a scapegoat view to blame Modernity for the problems in Islam. The problems of Islam, as well as Judaism and Christianity are endemic in their history.

So, as a Bahai---what is your solution to vocal, sometimes violent voices of the religio-nationalists, far right...and other such exclusive identity-constructs?

. . . and other exclusive identity-constructs like Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

To teach the spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith as partly adopted by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

I will be disappointed if you advocate that the solution is that everyone should become a Bahai---sameness is NOT diversity....

To embrace the diversity of humanity is not necessary for all humanity to become Baha'is. It is teaching of the Baha'i spiritual principles lacking in Judaism, Christianity and Islam that are bringing the potential of change to the world.

[siam]

Yes, all the nations you cite have very fallible human problems that lack contemporary spiritual principles to deal with their religio-nationalism.

I will definitely argue against your assertion the the diversiity of western nations is superficial. It is not perfect, of course, because of the fallibility of human nature, and unfortunate religio-nationalist under current. On the other hand, as a matter of fact, most Islamic countries do not allow anything close to the diversity encouraged in the West. In fact, in most Islamic countries the populations of minority believers is decreasing due to increased intolerance to these minorities.

Your idealistic bias of your judgement of modern western countries lacks objectivity concerning the total failure of most Islamic countries to endorse diversity, and even demand by law that minorities follow Islamic customs.

Hypocrisy is a human problem we will always have to deal with and should not be used as a scapegoat, when at present most religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are teaching and advocating religio-nationalist beliefs the Baha'i Faith does not teach,

Your acrid one sided accusations of Modernity do not take into consideration of the fallible nature of humanity through history, and do not take into consideration the problems of extreme religio-nationalism in Islam today, and it is a scapegoat view to blame Modernity for the problems in Islam. The problems of Islam, as well as Judaism and Christianity are endemic in their history.

. . . and other exclusive identity-constructs like Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

To teach the spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith as partly adopted by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

To embrace the diversity of humanity is not necessary for all humanity to become Baha'is. It is teaching of the Baha'i spiritual principles lacking in Judaism, Christianity and Islam that are bringing the potential of change to the world.

Diversity in Modernity---Even in the West, intolerance is increasing---The Jews have always been recipients of intolerance but with white nationalism/ethno-nationalism, intolerance is increasing towards minorities in the West---this is a global problem---East and West are both "Modern" and more or less democratic---so this is a problem of Democracy and Modernity. And those who rebel against the current systems are not wrong...IMO, they bring out valid concerns....today people are slaves to work and debts, our culture is materialistic, encouraging people towards a transient, hedonistic happiness, powerful elites control our political and economic systems for their own benefits, people are without meaning or purpose....It is not enough to have theories that give meaning and purpose in the abstract---these need to be transformed into lived actions if they are to become meaningful and purposeful.....this then leads to eudaimonic happiness---because that is how our nature is constructed. That is why all of the major religions emphasize charity---it is one way to encourage towards a deeper spiritual maturity that leads to deeper happiness and peace.
Here is a Jewish perspective from a Rabbi that expresses some of my thoughts...
http://www.islamicity.org/13145/are-...dinary-people/

Muslim-Majority countries---Yes , it is troubling the trajectory that some Muslim-majority countries are following---In an election, a Quranic verse was mistranslated and abused by Muslims for political gain---the same ugly populism that is occurring in the West is also creeping into the East. Recently a Muslim scholar was arrested by police in a Muslim-majority country---apparently they were "protecting Islam".....these and other abuses are troubling...We Muslims will destroy Islam ourselves if this continues...

Hypocrisy---Yes, it is a human problem and will always exist---but the degree is different from a culture/society that demands hypocrisy as a default norm for public discourse---the way Modern Secularism does.

Modernity/Islamic history---Modernity has not been all bad---it has had its problems which have become more apparent as circumstances have changed (globalization) and perhaps it is time to re-adjust to a post-Modern era?...and it is also the case that Islamic history has not been without its problems now and then...but the "Islamic Empire" did have a vast geographical reach from Spain and North Africa to the borders of China and India---it was partially "global" and we can learn from this history to take the best practices for our tomorrow.....Global trade and economics, Plural legal traditions, full freedom of religions, free and safe movement of goods and people over land and sea...etc....

Exclusive identity-constructs---Identity/identity-constructs are necessary for humanity to function in society as we are inherently social beings. It is in our nature. If identity-constructs are to be meaningful and purposeful---they need to have some degrees of exclusivity. The problem is not that---it is an excessive attachment to a particular identity-construct--nationalism, religion, ethnicity...etc. This is what causes an imbalance. Our identity constructs must be framed in a context that includes/allows for multiple identity-constructs/group affiliations with all of them culminating in the Unifying identity of the brotherhood of humanity. This can help balance and frame our multiple identity-constructs and group allegiances.

Qadr (to measure) is the Islamic principle that can be used to frame our construction of "systems"--economics, ethico-moral, political, legal,...etc...in order to create balance and harmony that leads to peace---our "systems" need to be constructed with balance and harmony among its various component parts....for example---Justice must be balanced with compassion and mercy....our instincts of self-preservation (selfish/individual) must be balanced with our nature of service to those we care about (community/altruistic)

Here a Muslim scholar, S.H. Nasr speaks about the Islamic principle of Balance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_vnd_N0_Ho