The Fallacy of Shared Values
- From: jose <josefsoplar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:26:12 -0800 (PST)
The Fallacy of Shared Values
By Janet Levy
At a time when 40% of young Muslims in the United Kingdom want to
impose sharia law on the country and 36% favor executing apostates of
Islam, the head of the Church of England called for the selective
application of sharia law in Britain in the interest of social
cohesion.
On February 7, 2008, Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury
and symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, issued what
amounts to a capitulation to the encroachment of Islam and an
accommodation to sharia. This Islamic theo-political-legal doctrine
assigns second class status to Christians and Jews, utilizes a
medieval system of justice that sanctions cruel and unusual
punishments and mandates the inequality of women and non-Muslims.
Archbishop Williams' suggestion is not unexpected given his 2003
speech at Princeton University, "Islam versus the West: Challenges
Facing the Human Family." In that address, the Archbishop called for
the cultivation of an "enduring partnership based on shared values
that make us human beings, that make us capable of receiving God's
gift of love and peace."
But an examination of the intersection of Islam and traditional
Western or Judeo-Christian societies reveals very little evidence of
any "shared values." Instead, glaring conflicts between the two are
evident in the role and practice of religion in society, the concepts
of moral behavior, the value of human life, personal responsibility
and civil and legal rights.
Church and State
The most dramatic of these conflicts is the difference over the power
religion holds in matters of state. Theologies shape societies, but
the extent of their ability to control human interactions is in direct
proportion to the extent of their mandate.
In the West, democratic governments preside over affairs of state and
the church's domain is subordinate to the rule of the land. Christ's
instruction to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and
unto God the things that are God's" embodies the separation of these
realms from a theological standpoint. Separation of church and state
is the underlying civil principle.
However, within Islam's all-encompassing religiopolitical ideology, no
dichotomy exists between the civil world of government and the
theological world of religion. Unelected religious clerics, who enjoy
lifelong reign, issue binding rulings on every aspect of people's
lives. Such rulings are indisputable and represent the will of Allah
as interpreted from the Islamic teachings.
Democracy vs. Theocracy
From these two differing theological and civil positions, two vastlydifferent methods of governing are derived. In most Western
democracies, government is "of, by and for the people" or some
approximation thereof. In essentially pluralistic participatory
democracies, the populace decides by a majority vote who among them
will best represent their interests and will advance the most
beneficial policies for the nation as a whole. A political leader who
doesn't perform according to the will of the people can be voted out
of office.
But in Islamic nations, rigid theocracies, for the most part, rule in
accordance with Islamic scriptures. Religious practices and laws are
enforced under the watchful eye of religious police, empowered to beat
or imprison violators. Clerical leaders control all aspects of life,
with the primary concern obedience to the words of Allah and Mohammed.
Religious leaders strictly interpret the Islamic doctrine and dissent
is prohibited and viewed as un-Islamic.
Equality vs. Supremacy
The Western concept of rule by the general populace led to the logical
extension and development of human rights. Equality under the law
regardless of race, religion, sex, or ethnicity is a cornerstone of
democratic societies. Government agencies monitor human rights
violations and prosecute violators of existing statutes. Affirmative
action programs often mitigate perceived disadvantages of identified
minority groups. Violence against women is prohibited by law and
spousal abuse is prosecuted and viewed as morally abhorrent by
society.
By contrast, within Islamic societies, in which the individual is
subordinate to God's rule, no concept of human rights exists and no
acceptance of differences, particularly religious differences, exists.
Instead, Muslims are viewed as superior to and more privileged than
non-Muslims. In many Islamic countries, non-Muslims are slighted for
not embracing Islam, treated like second class citizens and are
frequently prohibited from practicing their religions. Inequality also
exists between men and women, with men having greater standing and
worth than women. Women are under the control of male relatives. The
movements, careers and marital choices of women are often restricted.
Women who are not obedient may be dutifully beaten by their husbands
as a God-sanctioned corrective measure and responsibility under
Islamic teachings.
Acceptance vs. Elitism
Western and Islamic societies also differ in their approach to
treatment of others. Key moral features of any society are the rules
delineating how others should be treated.
In Western societies, the expected standard for human interaction can
be summarized from the universally accepted Golden Rule: "Do unto
others as you would have others do unto you." Thus, a reasonable
expectation exists that others will treat you the way in which they
would like to be treated and that you will reciprocate in kind.
Islam, however, lacks the concept of the Golden Rule. Instead, the
world is divided into believers in Allah, the Dar al Islam, and the
world of kafirs, the evil unbelievers, known as the Dar-al-Harb or
world of war. Behaviors prohibited against fellow Muslims, such as
lying, cheating or stealing can be used with impunity and are
considered permissible against kafirs. Even in murder, the
acceptability of the act is judged by the victim's status. Killing a
fellow Muslim is a serious crime, but the murder of an infidel is
justified by his non-belief in Allah.
Religious Freedom vs. Religious Coercion
The practice of religion itself also differs dramatically in Western
and Muslim societies. In the West, religion is freely chosen and
practiced according to an individual's desired level of orthodoxy.
Religion is viewed as a guide for living a moral life, based on reason
and interpretations of the word of God. God is perceived as a just,
loving and forgiving divine presence and a human-divine relationship
exists. Religious scriptures are "divinely inspired" and open to
interpretation, with doctrine allowed to evolve over time.
In Christianity, the messenger of God, Jesus Christ, is depicted on
earth as an ethical, honest, compassionate human being who works for
the common good of mankind. The Bible is considered a "how-to" guide
for living an ethical existence. Practitioners of Christianity and
Judaism endeavor to live peacefully alongside believers of other
religions and the highest level of religious expression is to serve
all mankind and establish harmony in the world. Western religions are
not at war with other religions and strive to live in peace with the
rest of the world.
Islam, however, dictates all facets of life and allows no room for
interpreting the words of Allah and Mohammed. According to Islamic
teachings, Allah dictated the Koran verbatim and it must not be
interpreted or altered. For Muslims, Allah's messenger or prophet,
Mohammed, is viewed as the ideal man whose life is to be emulated. His
actions included advocating the mass murder of kafirs or non-
believers, use of deception or taquiya to further the goals of Islam
and subjugation of non-Muslims and women. Allah is represented as a
revengeful, rigid and condemning god who demands that followers
conquer the world for Islam. Any concept of a God-human partnership is
alien.
Further, the Koran and Sunnah contain no concept of equal justice for
all and focus on revenge and warmongering. Islam is in conflict with
other religions and the highest level of devotion to Allah is waging
jihad and defeating those who do not embrace Islam. Muslims who leave
Islam are considered to be apostates and are threatened with death.
The Koran is a manual for life that must be followed literally. Islam
is viewed as superseding Judaism and Christianity, which are nullified
by Allah's final revelations in the Koran.
Abhorrence vs. Embrace of War
In democratic societies, war is viewed as a necessary evil to protect
fellow countrymen and preserve liberty and freedom. Citizens,
government representatives and military officers view loss of life as
tragic and regret the carnage and destruction of war. Efforts are made
to protect innocent citizens and military strategies are developed
accordingly.
In Islam, war against infidels is a noble, divinely commanded mission
against those deserving of death for their unbelief. The death of non-
Muslims - men, women or children - is a cause for celebration and a
certain route to Paradise. Young children are indoctrinated to hate
non-believers, are required to participate in military training and
are taught to revere martyrs.
Justice vs. Honor
Finally, Islamic and Western societies differ in their application of
laws and punishment. Western societies operate under the rule of law
and a set of equally applied legal standards. Murder, for even an
unpremeditated crime of passion, is condemned, punishment is demanded
for the perpetrator and the victim is mourned and often memorialized.
In instances of attempted assault or murder, the intended victim is
protected by authorities and generally receives support and sympathy
from the public at large.
But in traditional Islamic societies, murder is viewed as honorable if
it is committed to enforce social control and adherence to Islamic or
sharia law. Women who violate required behavioral, social norms can
end up the victims of honor killings. They can be killed for failing
to wear proper clothing, being in the company of an unrelated male
without a chaperone, dating, marrying a person deemed unacceptable or
leaving an abusive, forced marriage. Women who commit such offenses
are shunned, prompting murder as a response to defend family honor. As
such, it is a purposeful, planned event often committed with the
collusion of family members. Upon the completion, the murderer is
celebrated and the victim promptly erased from memory.
Given these dramatic and irreconcilable differences between Western
and Islamic beliefs, the quest by the Archbishop of Canterbury to
identify a common ground of shared values is obviously a hollow and
futile enterprise. While Western societies endeavor to accommodate to
the demands of Muslim immigrants and cultivate interfaith
understanding, Muslims are continually looking for ways to overcome
the West.
Acceptance of sharia law is thus not a step in the direction of
recognizing shared values. It is a step toward capitulation to Islam,
the subjugation of women and the state of dhimmitude, or creation of
minority and unequal status for non-Muslims. Instead of calling on
Muslims to integrate into the mainstream of British society and for
all UK citizens to follow the law of the land, Rowan Williams is wrong
headedly suggesting that British citizens recognize and accommodate
Islamic law. Already, Britain has accepted polygamy, halal meat in
public schools and sharia finance. With honor killings, forced
marriages and female genital mutilation rampant in the United Kingdom,
the Archbishop should be speaking out about the preservation of
cherished Western values of democracy and freedom.
.
- Prev by Date: At Best, a Pander
- Next by Date: Speaker Pelosi and the New York Times' Blind Eye
- Previous by thread: At Best, a Pander
- Next by thread: Speaker Pelosi and the New York Times' Blind Eye
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
