Multiculturalism, Human Rights and the West
by Nils A. Haug
The moral laws of each tradition -- that of the Torah and Sharia – when applied -- result in different outcomes. Most of the punishments specified in the Torah are no longer practiced. According to Sharia, however, punishments such as amputations or stoning to death for adultery, "especially women" – which can include pre-marital sex or having been raped -- as well as death for blasphemy or for choosing to leave the religion, are in force to this day.
"If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today," the late Sunni religious leader, Yusuf al Qaradawi, speculated on Egyptian television.
Nonie Darwish responded: "The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy."
Divinely sanctioned treatment by Muslims of non-Muslims still includes rape, slavery and death.
"So, when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds." — Quran 47:4 (Sahih Translation).
As the visions of holy war and martyrdom are underpinned by Sharia,Islamic jihadists appear to believe that they are doctrinally permitted to sow terror, death and destruction among non-Muslims wherever they are.
One unsurprising reason for the "wilful blindness" of the US and other major Western powers towards religious extremists is that politicians look for votes.
[I]t is the tiny nation of Israel that has found itself largely alone in the desperate fight to preserve the West's Judeo-Christian ideals. It would be to the West's advantage if its other nations would join Israel in this noble taskThe laws of the Torah, which became known to the world as Moses' Ten Commandments, founded the West's moral and ethical precepts on which its laws and judicial concepts such as justice and mercy are based. This development is reflected in the United States' founding documents, as well as England's Magna Carta of 1215, among others.
The opening paragraph of America's 1776 Declaration of Independence, for instance, refers to "the laws of nature" and "nature's God." From this assertion, the imperative of a sound ethical, moral and religious foundation for America's values was established. According to America's founding fathers, the laws of Moses – those moral codes sometimes collectively referred to as the "natural law" – underpin the value-based Western order, or civilization as distinguished from barbarism. In terms of religion, people in the West generally value the underlying importance of these Judeo-Christian values to their community.
The emphasis on definitive ethical-moral parameters might disturb some the West. "Jewish people brought morality to the world thousands of years ago, and some people are still mad about it," remarked the CEO of US technology giant Oracle, Safra Catz.
Islamic values, in contrast, originate from the Quran and the Hadith -- the sayings and actions of Mohammed, written 200 years after his death. Both books contain the bases of Sharia ["The Path"] and Islamic law, which, in application, can have moral and ethical requirements antithetical to Western concepts of justice.
Sharia tenets, which have different views from those in the West on human rights, justice, mercy and compassion, might appear alien to Judeo-Christian precepts. Sharia, in usage, often contravenes the basic values of the West's liberal democratic tradition.
The moral laws of each tradition -- that of the Torah and Sharia – when applied -- result in different outcomes. Most of the punishments specified in the Torah are no longer practiced. According to Sharia, however, punishments such as amputationsor stoning to death for adultery, "especially women" – which can include pre-marital sex or having been raped -- as well as death for blasphemy or for choosing to leave the religion, are in force to this day.
"If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today," the late Sunni religious leader, Yusuf al Qaradawi, speculated on Egyptian television.
Nonie Darwish responded:
"The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy."
The outcome of ethical and religious difference can also be seen in the motivation of the two primary combatants of the Gaza war, started by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Human Rights Watch released a report in July 2024, in which it stated that Hamas and its allies had "committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity during the October 2023, assault on southern Israel," and concluded that Hamas had engaged in a "systematic" assault against civilians.
Unsurprisingly, these findings were rejected outright by Hamas, whose spokesman, Gazi Hamad, justified the killing of civilians: "Israel has no right to exist in this region." In another broadcast, Hamad vowed that Hamas would repeat the October 7 attack, time and again, until Israel is eliminated, and that everything Hamas did was justified. In short, Israel must be eliminated, whatever the cost.
Divinely sanctioned treatment by Muslims of non-Muslims still includes rape, slavery and death.
To many Muslims, those who practice a different faith and do not subscribe to Sharia are non-believers (infidels), deemed to be in breach of "The Path" and consequently subject to a penalty of death. This is also true for Jews and Christians who were given the opportunity to accept the gift of Islam but instead rejected it. If they refuse to convert, or to live as dhimmis -- tolerated lower-class residents in subjugation to Islam -- they may be regarded as eligible for death:
"So, when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."
– Quran 47:4 (Sahih Translation).On January 4, 2024, Abu Hudhayfa al-Ansar, a spokesman for the jihadist Islamic State -- an offshoot of the transnational radical movement, Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a branch -- called on devotees around the world to carry out mass slaughter. This, he said, would be vengeance for the people of Gaza:
"Oh lions of Islam, hunt your prey — the Jews, Christians, and their allies — in the streets and alleyways of America, Europe, and the world. Break into their homes, kill them, and torment them in every way you can."
That is precisely what took place in Israel on October 7, 2023, without mercy of any kind. Validation for such horror can be found in the Quran's many versesprescribing fighting and death for those who decry the core Islamic declaration: "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." Sura 9:5 reads, "Slay the infidels wherever you find them..."
The de facto leader of Al-Qaeda, Salem Al-Sharif, on July 16, 2024, wrote in his essay, "This Is Gaza: A War Of Existence, Not A War Of Borders," that Muslims should not take civilians as prisoners, as Hamas did on October 7. "Islam," he said, "tells us killing takes precedence over taking prisoners."
In other words, they should not bother to kidnap hostages but simply kill them. As the recently assassinated leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, put it: "Take down the border and rip out their hearts!"
The intent of jihadist state actors such as Iran, Syria and Iraq, and non-state actors Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah, appears to be the imposition of Sharia law upon the world. "We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry, 'There is no god but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle," declared the founder of modern-day Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini [1].
Such regimes and groups apparently seek to entrench Islamic law, often upon an unwilling populace and subjugate them to a life under constant threat of penalty. Meanwhile, Hamas's political elite in Qatar, Lebanon Turkey, and elsewhere, became exorbitantly wealthy, enjoying comforts unavailable to the general population.
The concept of universal human rights might seem strange to Islamists. Sourced from the tradition of Moses' Commandments, articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights form the basis for international humanitarian law, which in turn defines the parameters of just-wars and armed conflicts. The precepts of Islamist fundamentalism appear equally foreign to Westerners, who live by the humanitarian values and principles of the Western democratic tradition, as founded on the Torah. Based on the leniency seen in Europe, many Westerners seem to be having a hard time trying to imagine that other people might actually be living according to a different set of premises (such as here, here, here and here).
Establishing humanitarian values in society provides rights and obligations. This is why textual originalism in the interpretation of US Constitutional law should be of particular concern to jurists. Emphasis on the intent of the writers of the Constitution rather than the fluctuating views of a succession of lawyers is of prime importance.
Despite a diversity of moral and ethical convictions and fickle social popularism, there should not be a compromise on foundational truths. Repeatedly reinterpreting them or the US Constitution becomes like the children's game of "broken telephone": after a few migrations from what was whispered, the original sentence soon becomes unrecognizable: one is left with a "Pandora's Box" of competing ideologies all striving for prominence. To avoid relaxing established human rights through fashionable ideologies is the task of the US State Department's Commission on Unalienable Rights.
In 2020, and on behalf of the Commission, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared the Commission's purpose was to "Ground our discussion of human rights in America's founding principles" -- those derived from the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical order, rather than those which might vary according to the spirit of the times.
This would be a concerning maneuver, yet US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made exactly such proposals at the most recent meeting of the Commission: he concealed in his terminology, tenets of identity politics relating to race, gender, and the like. It seems politicians cannot restrain themselves from manipulating foundational dogma for their own purposes.
Refuting the traditional principles of human rights results in situations such as the September 11, 2001 massacres in the US, and October 7, 2023, in Israel. Free from all civilized constraints yet asserting religious convictions, Hamas revealed their motivation: jihad based on Sharia. Regarding themselves as independent of Western conventions of war and human rights, they had no hesitation in slaughtering as many civilians as they could.
As the visions of holy war and martyrdom are underpinned by Sharia, Islamic jihadists appear to believe that they are doctrinally permitted to sow terror, death and destruction among non-Muslims wherever they are. Ultimately, they seem to be aiming to displace the "The Great Satan" (the US) and Europe. To varying degrees now, all Western -- and even some Muslim nations, such as the captive citizens of Iran -- are being adversely impacted by jihadists seeking global domination.
While much of the West bemoans the increase in Islamist radicalization, they only pay lip-service to increased military budgets and to general preparedness, despite looming internal and external conflicts. This is particularly true of Europe which relies on the US to carry much of the burden for its military defense, through NATO.
One unsurprising reason for the "wilful blindness" of the US and other major Western powers towards religious extremists is that politicians look for votes.
Another reason might be that the West's foreign policies are based on an outlook which George Weigel refers to as "rationalist secularism": Western leaders find it difficult to regard religiously-powered radicalism with the weight it deserves. Weigel concludes: "it is precisely because it's religiously grounded that such radicalism is exceptionally dangerous."
Iran and its proxies -- Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis -- and other Islamists are fully grounded in religious dogma, hence their glorification of martyrdom as anticipating lofty rewards in the life hereafter. The late Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus suggested that "we think it true to say that politics is, in largest part, an expression of culture, and at the heart of culture is religion."
Inevitably, the two major monotheistic religions of the world collide over issues of legitimacy (the biblical Creator or Allah), justice and other values (the Torah or Sharia), as well as transcendent truth (Judeo-Christianity or nihilist Islamism). On October 7, 2023, the confrontation between these two opposing worldviews was once again seen earnest -- with Israel as a crucible for testing the resolve of Western powers in safeguarding their traditional values, society and culture.
"If we fail," said Winston Churchill, in the British House of Commons during World War II, 1940, "then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age."
Although Churchill's statement applies to all Western nations at this time, it is the tiny nation of Israel that has found itself largely alone in the desperate fight to preserve the West's Judeo-Christian ideals. It would be to the West's advantage if its other nations would join Israel in this noble task.
Nils A. Haug is an author and columnist. A trial lawyer by profession, he is member of the International Bar Association, the National Association of Scholars, the Academy of Philosophy and Letters. Retired from law, his particular field of interest is political theory intersecting with current events. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology (Apologetics). Dr. Haug is author of 'Politics, Law, and Disorder in the Garden of Eden – the Quest for Identity'; and 'Enemies of the Innocent – Life, Truth, and Meaning in a Dark Age.' His work has appeared in First Things Journal, The American Mind, Quadrant, Minding the Campus, Gatestone Institute, Anchoring Truths, Jewish Journal, and elsewhere.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment