International Relations Omnibus

[Tidus44]

No, much of the West is appalled by the lack of personal freedoms and, as the West sees it, basic human rights in this argument. It's not because Sharia law is "different'. Protected religious fanaticism in the US does not allow for the transgression of law, human rights, etc.

 

And thank you for making my point; “as the west sees it” because that is exactly the point.

The west measures what is correct and acceptable by such narrow and ignorant standards it is mind boggling.

I’d be interested in what you think Sharia law inhibits, limits or restricts regarding human rights and personal freedoms, because that would be very interesting to read. Actually, please don’t bother as I don’t think I could take it.

 

As for the enlightened west and its championship of “personal freedom” and “human rights”, why the laws on same sex marriage? Why is there an argument over abortion? Oh yeah, Westboro Baptist Church....

Need more? Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

 

Yes, the motto of the west, live and let live – just so long as it’s the way I think, oh and by the way no one has a right to judge us on it either.

 

Western ideas of human rights and personal freedoms is not the same as their idea of human rights and personal freedoms, so what makes the west right and them wrong – and more importantly, why does the west think it has a right to judge or interfere?

[WizardOfAtlantis]

@Wizard

 

The problem with the Qur'an burning is that is was done on a American Base in Afghanistan, if I read the articles correctly. I may agree with you if it was in say, Nebraska....but when you are in someone else's country I would say that their actions were more than bad taste and warranted an apology from the President.

Ah, Thank you very much for that little tidbit of information, Lisnpuppy. That changes things greatly.

 

No, much of the West is appalled by the lack of personal freedoms and, as the West sees it, basic human rights in this argument. It's not because Sharia law is "different'. Protected religious fanaticism in the US does not allow for the transgression of law, human rights, etc.

 

And thank you for making my point; "as the west sees it" because that is exactly the point.

The west measures what is correct and acceptable by such narrow and ignorant standards it is mind boggling.

No, actually, the West doesn't. The West is far more permissive than any other place on earth. It's the true secret of getting along with others. You have to let them be their way. There are many, many mosques in every Western country. How many churches and synagogues are there in, let's say, Saudi Arabia?

I'm not going to argue religion with you, so it's difficult to talk about these things but some legal and social points can be made, I think. You would be killed in countries under Sharia law for things people in the West take for granted. Did you read my story above? It is 100% true. It's ridiculous to even discuss how you could lose your life or get raped or stoned to death or beaten publicly because of what you wear or don't wear, whose hand you were holding in public, who you were kissing in public, etc, etc. That is a joke and can't even be taken seriously as anything but socially primitive.

I don't know where you're from, but you put forth a typical Middle Eastern point of view (and I do have experience around quite a few Arabs, so I'm not talking about vague stereotypes from tv, I'm speaking of actual Arabs from Egypt, Syria, etc). Not really being able to distinguish between what makes the West the West (as in, its people and their culture) and the powers that rule it (the Governments) and the decisions they make, you lump them all together. And don't even try to reverse that say the same about any dogma-based or fanatical country in the world, such as North Korea, for example...such closed environments don't produce levels of personal freedom that are contrary to the government's desires, for long at any rate. Why? Because they kill you for it. You have no personal freedom in a rigidly dogma-based society, note I said dogma and not religious. Dogma is unthinking. Only people can think, people free from dogma. It doesn't mean you can't practice, it just means you can't be a slave to it and stop being a rational, thinking, and independent human being.

Many people, entire countries, in the West are against Guantanamo Bay. Does it matter? No. Why? Because of the decision of a few. Even so, there are still a million times from freedoms in the West. You think Guantanamo Bay is a bad place? sure, it is, but you know where they ship prisoners when they want to really treat them badly? To the secret prisons in Egypt, etc. Why is that? Do you know about that? It's so documented that there have even been shows on tv about it.

Moderation is what's needed in the Middle East. I personally think that the Iranian people are the ones to do it, if they kick out Ahmadinejad and take back their country. They are (or very easily would be without Ahmadinejad) the most advanced of the Middle Eastern countries, and could be a flagship for the whole region.

Now I understand what I meant by 12th century Europe (I was sleepy when I wrote it). Iran is Moorish Spain.

[grannywils]

Oh, Wiz. Why can't you be King of the World!!!!?:tongue:

[Balagor]

>snip<

so what makes the west right and them wrong – and more importantly, why does the west think it has a right to judge or interfere?

 

Paranoia. The "White Man" has always had paranoia that someone thinking or acting different should come and take what is "lawfully" his. Many times in history we have made progress by taking from others what did not belong to us. Many times did we introduce systems in other worlds, where people did not want it. Perhaps thus the paranoia.

[ginnyfizz]

And here was me thinking that they were not burning the Qu'ran because it was the Qu'ran as such, ie it was not so much a religious statement as the fact that the particular copies of the Qu'ran in question, as I understand it, were being suspected of being used as a method of passing coded messages by terrorists. Presumably they used copies of the Qu'ran because they thought the West wouldn't dare do anything about it for fear of being accused of profanity.

 

As for the question of sharia law, it's a vexed question where I come from, in the UK. I'm trying to be very careful to avoid a religious debate because it isn't allowed here. But it has been seriously suggested, indeed demanded by the more strident members of the community concerned, that in areas where there is a very large Islamic community, that they should effectively be allowed to govern their districts by sharia law and that, in those districts, the police and the criminal and civil courts should butt out. The trouble is, in all those areas, there are other community groups that are deeply alarmed by the prospect, and so far the demands have been met with a "Certainly not!" The way sharia law is often practised is not usually good news for women, which is ironic since during my law studies I was deeply impressed that married Moslem women traditionally always kept their own property at a time when, in the West, married women had no such rights.

 

Not paranoia, Balagor, the fact is that extremist positions are being taken on both sides, but the Western countries, despite having oddballs and fanatics of their own, are not by and large theocracies. It is true, as Wiz says, that

"The West is far more permissive than any other place on earth. It's the true secret of getting along with others."

[WizardOfAtlantis]

– and more importantly, why does the west think it has a right to judge or interfere?

 

Sorry, I forgot about that part at the end.

First, and once again, there has to be a separation between Western people and Western governments. Western people think they have a right to judge something because they can actually do so. It's a personal right to think what one wants. It's freedom of thought, and the freedom of speech gives you the right to say it. Not just for "actual" Westerners, but for everybody that lives in their countries. Judging something is merely passing your personal opinion on something. People do this all the time. You can judge anything...however, it is a separate thing when governments do this and then enact some legal measure over it. That's entirely different, and it's not limited to Western governments. It would be naive to think so. All governments do this to each other, either singly or in coalition.

Now, interference is another thing entirely. That's a really messy issue. It depends on how you define "interfere", how you see the world, and how you think the world scene should evolve. I personally see a lot of "interference" going on that I think the world could do without, and it lies squarely on the shoulders of a very select few individuals and their decisions when it comes down to it. Millions of lives hang in the balance of the decisions of very few people. There's nothing new there.

Personally, if I wanted to "interfere" in the Middle East, I would set up schools that aren't dogma-based, establish wi-fi hotspots and start handing out iPads.

Knowledge is power.<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

 

Oh, Wiz. Why can't you be King of the World!!!!?:tongue:

Oft I dream of the snowy peaks of Shambhala, yet never as their King would I rap upon those doors.

http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif

That job's already taken. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif

[MajKrAzAm]

A huge failing of the west has been to judge everyone else by a very narrow and prejudiced standard….. The west is generally appalled by the thoughts of some practise (law, religion, whatever) being in place that isn’t exactly what they feel is appropriate or familiar to them.

 

Western ideas of human rights and personal freedoms is not the same as their idea of human rights and personal freedoms, so what makes the west right and them wrong – and more importantly, why does the west think it has a right to judge or interfere?

 

You raise a few important points when discussing international relations, Tidus. Specifically the issue of what standard should be used in international affairs to judge actions or practices of other countries. From my interpretation of your posts you seem to suggest (correct me if I’m wrong) that each culture should be judged according to its own specific criteria, and doing otherwise would be to impose a foreign (specifically Western) standard upon that country.

 

I disagree with this relativistic approach, which if taken to its ultimate conclusion, denies that any objective criteria can exist. The problem with relativism is that if we reject the notion that any principle or practice can be entirely and objectively justified, then we are left vulnerable to the excesses of human nature. To reject that any objective norms exist is tantamount to saying that there is no standard of reference to which we are able to judge human activity. Many people hold the view that all values and practices are relative to the cultures in which they are practiced, and that what is considered the standard is in the best case nothing but the ideal adopted by one’s own culture, society or even civilization. But if this is true then the principals of say, a cannibalistic society are just as defensible as the principles of a liberal democracy. If you take a relativistic approach then both must be regarded as equal, as no discernible moral differences can be made without imposing one’s values upon that society/culture.

 

If we consider things from an international relations perspective then things become even more problematic. Take the issue of government violence/murder against its own people for example, how then could a foreign country criticize that nation for violating these basic rights of human life. If we take your cultural relativistic non-interference approach then one would be accused of imposing Western standards upon that country. Your approach would allow one to defend gross abuses of rights by totalitarian regimes under the guise of cultural differences. Apologists for genocidal regimes often defend their crimes this way. They use the same argument that you make: that the West judges them by a ‘narrow’ and ‘prejudiced’ standard. If we follow your reasoning we would be hamstrung from making any objective observations between cultures and consequently prevented from calling out gross abuses of human rights by foreign nations. We would be left with the situation where we would apply different standards to different cultures/societies; ‘Cannibalism for the cannibals, and Liberalism for the liberals’.

 

A common argument that is raised which you briefly allude to is that, if judged by its own standards, then the West is hypocritical. This is partly true, but it only really represents the nature of these standards. That these principles are so onerous that even the West has difficulty living up to them. We should not dismiss these standards and principles simply because even the most liberal Western countries sometimes falter in their pursuit of these values, instead we should see these values and standards as ideals for which Western societies strive to achieve, and may sometimes fail.

 

I’d be interested in what you think Sharia law inhibits, limits or restricts regarding human rights and personal freedoms.

 

As it is the law of Islam, the final revelation of God, it sets itself apart from other legal systems by its intrinsic divine and immutable nature. Although, the common and civil law both partly owe their development to canonical ideas and law, religious dogma is not central to them as it is to the Sharia. The relationship between Islam and the Sharia is intertwined; the reliance of the Sharia on Islamic precepts means that it is also concerned with all forms of human activity. Classical Islam made no distinction between the church and state, they were not considered to be separate institutions. Hence, it must follow that the relationship between basic rights and Sharia is also axiomatically concerned with Islam. The role of the jurist is to interpret the sources of the law and to develop legal principles in accordance with the primary sources: the Koran and the Hadith. Jurists may disagree and dissent, but they must remain faithful to central Islamic precepts, they may achieve this through ijma (consensus), or qiyas (analogical reasoning). This poses difficulties for various freedoms and rights in Sharia, in that any use or justification for them must conform to Islamic precepts as defined by Sharia. An Islamic jurist would have to do a lot of theological/legal hoop jumping in order to legitimize certain freedoms. And ultimately these freedoms would be secondary to the Koran and Hadith.

[ginnyfizz]

That is excellently well put, MajKrAzAm, and in accordance with my understanding of how Sharia law must operate.

[sukeban]

@Tidus

 

"And thank you for making my point; 'as the west sees it' because that is exactly the point.

The west measures what is correct and acceptable by such narrow and ignorant standards it is mind boggling."

 

Even if it is a western imposition, I think that most of us would still agree that moderation is, almost universally, a virtue rather than a vice.

 

We can probably also all agree that moderation has been sorely lacking, for varying reasons, in the mideast for... quite a while.

 

I would support the above (@Wizard) that dogma-based ideologies (orthodoxy) are not conducive toward moderation, as the nature of a dogma reflexively negates any and all of its opposition. This was true of Communism, it is true of free-market fundamentalist capitalism, it is also true of religious fundamentalism. In my eyes, the religious totalitarianism of Saudi Arabia is not so different from the secular totalitarianism of the old Communist states, as both laid claim to an all-encompassing orthodoxy (one given by god, the other by a man-god) that denied the existence/validity of anything happening to fall outside of its power to explain. (Insert commentary of Majkrazam here.)

 

Happily, since the Enlightenment, this is not the case in the west. We have liberal democracies that are, by and large, very tolerant of ambiguity and shades of grey. Our rights may or may not emanate from god, but our governments are explicitly of, by, and for the people that live in them, as well as being amenable to change. Certainly they are imperfect, but that does not mean that they are on an equal footing with Pashtun tribal law.

 

Excerpt:

 

"Badal (justice) - To seek justice or take revenge against the wrongdoer. This applies to injustices committed yesterday or 1000 years ago if the wrongdoer still exists. Justice in Pashtun lore needs elaborating: even a mere taunt (or "Paighor") is regarded as an insult - which can only usually be redressed by shedding of the taunter's blood (and if he isn't available, then his next closest male relation). This in turn leads to a blood feud that can last generations and involve whole tribes with the loss of hundreds of lives."

Edited February 25, 2012 by sukeban

[Tidus44]

Well, I certainly cannot argue with the logic and out of context rebuttals here.

 

I submit....

Life is just perfect in the western world and all others who do not follow exactly the same laws, rights, religious beliefs and standards of living as the western world should be made to change, because the western world is right and everyone else is wrong. This must be true because I heard a story about some bad stuff that happened from some guys I know.

 

Obviously, no one but the western world has any idea of how to live and thus everyone must be brought into line with western beliefs and standards, regardless of any other consideration, condition or situation. I know this because I don't like anything that's different or that I think is not right for me - and really the whole issue is all about me and what I want isn't it.

 

It is also the absolute right and responsibility of the west to make the whole world conform to western ideals and not let anyone work out their own problems, because forbid that they take some time to do it, or worse, may come up with something different than what the western world sees as acceptable. I mean, they cannot look after themselves to do the right thing can they? I mean they just submit and never protest or revolt or do anything to change things for themselves, so the west better do it for them.

 

So lets get the troops mobilized and get killing them nonconformists and different thinkers ASAP because I also heard they may have WMDs as well. oorah!

 

And while I had no intention of any religious issue being raised in what I said previously, all I can say now is; whatever omnipresent being that may or may not exist, help us all.