الشريعة في الإسلام، الغرب وحقوق الإنسان
نيلز أ. هوغ / معهد جاتستون / 8 نوفمبر 2024
(ترجمة وتلخيص بواسطة موقعي المنسقية وغوغل)
Islamism, the West and Human Rights
Nils A. Haug/Gatestone Institute/November 08, 2024
Sharia tenets – which have views of human rights, justice, mercy and compassion that differ from those of the West — can appear alien to Judeo-Christian precepts. Sharia, in usage, often appears to contravene the basic humanistic values of the West.
The outcome is that, in application, the moral laws of each tradition — that of the Torah as opposed to that of Sharia — which prescribes harsh punishments, such as amputation for theft; death for leaving Islam (apostasy) or blasphemy, or being stoned to death for adultery, which can include having been raped — are consequences inimical to Western ideas of justice, mercy and human rights.
By practicing a different faith, those who do not subscribe to Sharia are “disbelievers” (infidels), deemed to be in breach of “The Path” and consequently subject to a penalty of conversion, subjugation or death.
This is particularly true for Jews and Christians, who were offered opportunities to accept the gift of Islam but ungratefully declined.
“Slay the infidels wherever you find them…” — Qur’an, Sura 9:5.
The concept of universal human rights might seem quite strange to Islamists.
The intent of jihadi state actors …. in their own words, appears to be the imposition of Sharia law and Islamic dominance over the world.
That is why textual originalism in the interpretation of US Constitutional law is of particular concern to jurists. Emphasis on the original intent of the writers of the US Constitution rather than the fluctuating views of a succession of lawyers is of prime importance.
Reinterpreting the US Constitution can easily become like the children’s game of “telephone”: after a few migrations, the original intent of the founders could well become unrecognizable.
Western leaders find it difficult to regard religiously powered radicalism with the weight it deserves. “[I]t’s precisely because it’s religiously grounded that such radicalism is exceptionally dangerous.” — George Weigel, First Things, January 31, 2024.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, during World War II, said in the House of Commons on June 18, 1940: “If we fail, 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 also applies to Western nations at this time, Israel has been largely alone in the fight to preserve the West’s Judeo-Christian ideals. It would be to the West’s advantage for other nations to join Israel in this noble task.
The Torah’s ethical and moral laws, which became known to the world as Moses’ Ten Commandments, founded the West’s moral-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 concept of universal human rights might seem quite strange to Islamists. (Image source: iStock/Getty Images)
The Torah’s ethical and moral laws, which became known to the world as Moses’ Ten Commandments, founded the West’s moral-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, therefore, the laws of Moses – those moral codes collectively referred to as the natural law – underpin the value-based Western order.
The moral components of the laws given to Moses, says American scholar Leon Kass, are “an orienting aspirational guide for every Israelite and every human heart and mind.” Adoption of Mosaic codes thus gives advent, in the West, to civilization as distinguished from barbarism. In terms of religion, the Jewish people generally value the underlying importance of the Torah to their community.
The emphasis on ethical and moral parameters might disturb many in the West, particularly those who hold a secular or atheistic worldview. Social unrest can take place, but the West has an obligation to protect its core principles of upholding the values of civilization.
Islamic values have not come from the West. They originated from the Quran and the Hadith — the sayings and actions of Mohammed. Both works form the bases of Sharia, Islamic law. Sharia law in application can have severe moral and ethical requirements contrary to Western concerns of justice.
Sharia tenets – which have views of human rights, justice, mercy and compassion that differ from those of the West — can appear alien to Judeo-Christian precepts. Sharia, in usage, often appears to contravene the basic humanistic values of the West.
The outcome is that, in application, the moral laws of each tradition — that of the Torah as opposed to that of Sharia — which prescribes harsh punishments, such as amputation for theft; death for leaving Islam (apostasy) or blasphemy, or being stoned to death for adultery, which can include having been raped — are consequences inimical to Western ideas of justice, mercy and human rights.
The result of ethical and religious difference is seen in the motivation of the two primary combatants of the Gaza War, begun on October 7, 2023. Human Rights Watch released a report, stating that “Hamas-led armed groups committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians during the October 7 assault on southern Israel,” and 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 other words, Israel must be eliminated, whatever the cost.”
By practicing a different faith, those who do not subscribe to Sharia are “disbelievers” (infidels), deemed to be in breach of “The Path” and consequently subject to a penalty of conversion, subjugation or 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.” – Qur’an 47:4 (Sahih Translation).
This is particularly true for Jews and Christians, who were offered opportunities to accept the gift of Islam but ungratefully declined.
On January 4, 2024, Abu Hudhayfa al-Ansar, 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. He said this 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.”
This is precisely what took place in Israel on October 7, 2023, without mercy of any kind. Validation as found in the Quran’s many verses urging the death of 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.
The recently assassinated leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, said, “We will tear down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies [and] eat their livers.” Of the 101 Israeli hostages still being held by Hamas, only 51 are thought to be still alive.
The intent of jihadi state actors, such as Iran, Syria and Iraq, and non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah, in their own words, appears to be the imposition of Sharia law and Islamic dominance over the world. “Iran’s main goal,” wrote the Middle East scholar Neville Teller: “Destroy the world as we know it, impose Shia Islam globally.”
These groups seek to entrench Islamic law, often upon an unwilling populace and subjugate them to a life under the 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 quite 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 parameters of just-war and armed conflict. The precepts of Islamist fundamentalism are equally foreign to Westerners who live by the humanitarian values and principles of the Western democratic tradition, as founded on the Torah.
Establishing humanitarian values provides rights and obligations. Without this basis, the influence of ethics that include relativism and subjectivity, will temper the objective authority necessary for wide acceptance. That is why textual originalism in the interpretation of US Constitutional law is of particular concern to jurists. Emphasis on the original intent of the writers of the US Constitution rather than the fluctuating views of a succession of lawyers is of prime importance.
The reasoning is that there should not be a compromise on foundational truths, despite a diversity of moral and ethical convictions and a fickle social popularism. Reinterpreting the US Constitution can easily become like the children’s game of “telephone”: after a few migrations, the original intent of the founders could well become unrecognizable. Concessions could open a “Pandora’s Box” of competing ideologies all striving for prominence. To avoid the relaxing of established human rights through fashionable ideologies is the task of the US Commission of Unalienable Rights.
In 2020, and on behalf of the Commission, former 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 Antony Blinken made exactly those 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 refrain themselves from manipulating foundational dogma for their own purposes.
Refutation of traditional human rights principles results in situations like that of September 11, 2011 in the US, and of October 7, 2023, in Israel. Free from all civilized constraints, yet averring religious convictions, Hamas revealed the malevolent spirit of their motivation: jihad, based on Sharia. Considering themselves independent of Western conventions of war and human rights, they had no hesitation in slaughtering civilians, without mercy.
Ideologies of holy war and martyrdom are underpinned by Sharia. Islamic jihadists believe they are doctrinally permitted to sow terror, death and destruction among non-Muslims wherever they operate, while ultimately aiming for the “Great Satan” (the United States) and Europe. To varying degrees, all Western — and even some Muslim nations, such as the captive citizens of Iran — are adversely impacted by jihadists seeking global domination over their religion and its Sharia laws.
While much of the West bemoans the increase in Islamist radicalization, they pay lip-service to “multiculturalism”; to increased military budgets; and to preparedness, despite looming internal and external conflicts. This is particularly true of Europe, which relies on the US, through NATO, to carry much of the burden for its military defense.
A pertinent reason for the wilfull “blindness” of the US and other major Western powers towards religious extremists, and their aberrant values, is 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’s precisely because it’s religiously grounded that such radicalism is exceptionally dangerous.”
Iran and its proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad — and other Islamists are fully grounded in religious dogma, hence their glorification of a martyrdom that anticipates lofty rewards in the life hereafter. The late Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus, remarked about such an outlook:
“[W]e 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), and transcendent truth (Judeo-Christianity or nihilist Islamism). On October 7, 2023, the confrontation between these two opposing worldviews was once again demonstrated in earnest with Israel not only as the focal point, but as a crucible for testing the resolve of Western powers in safeguarding their traditional values, culture and society.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, during World War II, said in the House of Commons on June 18, 1940:
“If we fail, 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 also applies to Western nations at this time, Israel has been largely alone in the fight to preserve the West’s Judeo-Christian ideals. It would be to the West’s advantage for other nations to 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.
© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
الشريعة في الإسلام، الغرب وحقوق الإنسان
بقلم: نيلز أ. هوغ / معهد جاتستون / 8 نوفمبر 2024
(ترجمة وتلخيص بواسطة موقعي المنسقية وغوغل)
تشير الشريعة الإسلامية – التي تملك رؤى خاصة حول حقوق الإنسان، العدالة، الرحمة، والشفقة تختلف عن تلك المعروفة في الغرب – إلى مبادئ تبدو غريبة عن تقاليد الديانات اليهودية-المسيحية. في التطبيق، غالبًا ما تكون الشريعة في تضارب مع القيم الإنسانية الغربية الأساسية.
“اقتلوا الكافرين حيثما وجدتموهم…” — القرآن، سورة 9:5.
يختلف القانون الأخلاقي المتجذر في الشريعة الإسلامية عن ذلك المستند إلى التوراة. الشريعة تتضمن عقوبات صارمة، مثل قطع يد السارق، الإعدام للمسلمين الذين يتركون دينهم (الردة) أو ينطقون بكلمات تُعد تجديفًا، والرجم حتى الموت للزناة (حتى في حالات الاغتصاب). هذه العقوبات، بنظر الغرب، تتعارض بشكل مباشر مع مفاهيم الرحمة والعدالة الإنسانية.
الذين لا يتبعون الشريعة يُعتبرون “كافرين” (غير مؤمنين) ويُعدّون خارجين عن “الصراط المستقيم”، ويصبحون عرضة للعقاب. اليهود والمسيحيون، رغم أنهم “أهل الكتاب”، عرض عليهم قبول هبة الإسلام، لكنهم رفضوا، ما يجعلهم من منظور الشريعة بحاجة إلى التحويل أو الخضوع أو المواجهة.
المسعى العالمي لفرض الشريعة الإسلامية
لا يبدو أن فكرة حقوق الإنسان الكونية تتماشى مع التوجه الإسلامي الأصولي. ووفقًا لتصريحات صريحة من الفاعلين الجهاديين، يبدو الهدف الرئيسي هو فرض هيمنة الشريعة وسيطرة الإسلام على العالم.
مثل هذا التفسير الأصولي للنصوص يشكل مصدر قلق خاص للقضاة الذين يعتمدون على نية مؤسسي القانون الأمريكي، بدلاً من آراء متعاقبة لمجموعة متغيرة من المحامين. التركيز على النية الأصلية لمؤسسي دستور الولايات المتحدة، بدلاً من إعادة تفسير النص حسب تطور الزمن، يعد أمرًا جوهريًا.
قد يصبح إعادة تفسير الدستور مثل لعبة الهاتف؛ بعد عدة نقلات، قد تُفقد النية الأصلية تمامًا. ومن هنا، يبدو أن قادة الغرب يجدون صعوبة في تقييم خطورة الأصولية الدينية بالقدر الذي تستحقه.
صرح الباحث جورج ويغل في مقاله في مجلة “فيرست ثينغس” (يناير 2024): “لأنها متجذرة دينيًا، فإن هذه الأصولية تشكل خطرًا استثنائيًا.”
خطر الإسلام الأصولي على العالم
وفي مواجهة هذا الخطر، دعا رئيس الوزراء البريطاني ونستون تشرشل، خلال الحرب العالمية الثانية، في خطاب ألقاه في مجلس العموم في 18 يونيو 1940: “إذا فشلنا، فإن العالم كله، بما في ذلك الولايات المتحدة، بما في ذلك كل ما عرفناه وأحببناه، سيغرق في هاوية عصر مظلم جديد.”
وفي حين أن تحذير تشرشل ينطبق على الغرب حاليًا، فإن إسرائيل كانت في طليعة النضال لحماية القيم اليهودية-المسيحية الغربية. ومن مصلحة الغرب أن ينضم لمساعدة إسرائيل في مهمتها النبيلة هذه.
لقد أسست القوانين الأخلاقية اليهودية-المسيحية، مثل الوصايا العشر التي أعطيت لموسى، المبادئ الأخلاقية الغربية، التي تؤسس القوانين والمفاهيم القضائية في الغرب، مثل العدالة والرحمة. هذا التأسيس القانوني والأخلاقي، إلى جانب وثائق التأسيس الأمريكية، يضع المبادئ الأخلاقية الأساسية للغرب، التي قد تبدو غريبة تمامًا على الإسلاميين المتشددين.
نبذة عن الكاتب
نيلز أ. هوغ هو كاتب ومحلل. محامٍ مختص بالقضايا من حيث المهنة، وعضو في الجمعية الدولية للمحامين، والجمعية الوطنية للعلماء، وأكاديمية الفلسفة والآداب. متقاعد من مجال القانون، يركز اهتمامه على النظرية السياسية وتأثيرها على الأحداث الجارية. يحمل دكتوراه في اللاهوت (الدفاعيات). هوغ هو مؤلف “السياسة، القانون، والفوضى في جنة عدن – البحث عن الهوية”؛ و “أعداء البراءة – الحياة، الحقيقة، والمعنى في عصر مظلم.” ظهرت أعماله في مجلات مثل “فيرست ثينغس”، “ذا أميريكان مايند”، “كوادرانت”، “ميندينغ ذا كامبوس”، “غاتستون إنستيتيوت”، “أنكورينغ تروثز”، و “جيويش جورنال” وغيرها.
