Islamic Vs. Western Human Rights

Submitted by CanadianChris (Canada), Sep 29, 2010 at 16:01

I have read and listened to arguments about how different the Islamic conception of human rights is so different from the Western ideal of Human Rights. That it is simply a lack of understanding that causes the friction, or that the Islamic version comes from God, and not kings or any man. The difference in the ideals of human rights between the Western world and the Islamic world leaves us with a difficult decision. That we either need to abandon our insistence on universal human rights, or admit that there will be no reconciliation with the Muslim world as long as they hold that there is a different standard for their religion and that they are obliged only to their own standard. This also leaves us with another difficult situation, in that freedom of religion cannot be held above universal human rights. That when universal human rights are violated, that violation cannot be excused or protected under the banner of religion or culture.

In my thinking, this would require anyone immigrating to or currently living in, the west to oblige themselvesto, or to reaffirm their commitment to the ideals of universal human rights above any other religious commitments or standards. This cannot be deemed as racist, because race does not play a part in this requirement. This could only be considered as discriminatory in the sense and to the extent that the western world aspires to esteem ALL human life as equally valuable, and that the tyrannical religious/political mindset and indoctrination which diminishes the individual due to their gender, culture, or religious choice is intolerable in a society which values ALL people equally under the Law.

I am outraged by the idea that we would even allow discourse with a culture that maintains a "god given' right to abuse their fellow humans. A woman should be able to wear what she likes without the threat of causing a man to "lose control" of his self restraint. Any man that claims this as necessary is a primitive danger to society and needs to be restrained himself. Would we allow a dangerous lion to roam freely if we knew that it could not restrain itself from mauling indiscriminately? I don't think so. It simply does not make sense to lock up the people and allow the lion to walk freely. We need to protect ourselves from people who cannot restrain themselves in a modern society. A person seeing the hand of 'god' in the world and universe, can find themselves questioning dogma and even turning away from unsatisfying religious creeds. These people should not be living in fear for their lives, because they have begun to use their intellect to perceive the hand of the divine. A woman being raped, should have objective laws to defend her rather than a misogynistic court biased against her from the beginning of a trial for justice. Children should be allowed to mature before they are subjected to sexual interference. The example of Mohammed and his beloved child bride has given permission to the followers of his teachings to perpetrate horrific abuses against children, as evidenced in Mr. Pipes' article about young virgin girls in jail being married and raped so that they can be executed as non-virgins. This is horrific not only in the fact that children are being subjected to this, but that CHILDREN are also being executed under this culture.

These and many other differences in the ideals of Western Vs. Islamic human rights, show ME very clearly that the parts of the world of Islam which rejects the ideals of Western human rights, must be rejected from Western Life and integration and must be held at arms length until individuals and entire Islamic nations can show that they have evolved away from that primitive mindset. I do, however, realize that in this thinking, I am not the majority, because their are so many military, political and economic reasons to try to integrate this culture which far outweigh doing that which is commonly held to be upright, noble and honorable.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".