One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - Essay Example

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” The oft-repeated statement that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” finds particular resonance in this day and age when conflicts and wars are wrought by differing ideological viewpoints. The execution of Saddam Hussein very recently signaled the end of a dictator who was responsible for the slaughter of several thousands and plunged his country into destitution and poverty, but it also highlighted the deep fracture in Iraq. On the one hand, we saw how hundreds danced in the streets to celebrate the demise of a despotic leader. On the other hand, we saw the village of Tikrit plummeted in grief, for they have lost a beloved son. Saddam’s death also brought to the fore the long and protracted problem that is the US-Iraq war, now fast losing popularity because of the failure of the Bush administration to locate weapons of mass destruction. These weapons they claimed, are the reason they launched an attack against Saddam a few years ago. But most importantly, the death sentence should provoke reflections on fundamental conceptual differences between peoples. We in the West take human rights for granted; we believe these are cherished ideals to be fought for, as they are the foundation of a robust democracy. On the other hand, in Islamic countries, libertarian values may not be as important. Order and religion is primordial, and individual rights must bend in favor of the stability of the State. We ask, which paradigm is more correct? But perhaps the more crucial question to ask is: who is to say which paradigm is the more correct? In a sense, the quotation “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” does not necessarily have to refer to a particular man. In its broad sense, it refers to divergent paradigms and disparate value systems, and to take it one step further, the tragedy that is wrought when these systems collide. This paper will discuss the conflict between Western perspective and Eastern perspective with regard to the crucial issue of human rights. Indeed, we have been quick to label those who advocate measures that to our minds are repressive, as dictators or terrorists or right wing conservatives, when in fact, they are merely acting in accordance with the cultural norms of their community. The converse of that, of course, is that far too many leaders justify brazen acts of oppression and injustice as a cultural norm and should thus fall outside the scrutiny of the international community. How indeed does one balance these competing interests? The concept of human rights is by no means of recent vintage. It is used primarily to define relationships between the citizens and the State, by constituting a check on the awesome power of the State and by enabling human beings to flourish to their fullest potential free from oppression, strife, hunger and discrimination. A thriving and robust democracy, it is often said, can only be achieved when basic human rights are preserved. Cherished principles like press freedom, religious freedom, diversity and pluralism are indispensable requirements of a democratic society. It is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to argue against the validity of these principles. The various conflicts and revolutions in the world have shaped the concept of human rights as we know it. In the last two hundred and fifty years, we see the clamor for human rights as the clamor of a world and of the various peoples inside it for equality and freedom. Starting with the French and American revolutions towards the latter part of the eighteenth century, it is this very notion of human rights that has led colonized states and revolutionary movements to assert their voices and fight for their freedoms against oppressive and despotic governments – from the Tiananmen Square uprising in China to the struggle of the East Timorese against Indonesian occupation. When the United Nations was created in 1948 by a world still reeling from the ravages of the Second World War and intent on healing the wounds wrought by it, it was tasked to become the primary agency in defining and advancing human rights. From then on, various other agencies were created, addressing specific human rights concerns. Notable examples of this are the International Labor Organization and the UNICEF. However, the universality of human rights has oftentimes been challenged by critics on the allegation that the Western bias is very much evident, and that the popularity of it in recent times is nothing more than the remnants of a neocolonial attitude purveyed by the crafty and bought by the undiscerning. A refutation of this was attempted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1968 through a study that demonstrated that “the profound aspirations underlying human rights correspond to concepts – the concepts of justice, an individual’s integrity and dignity, freedom from oppression and persecution, and individual participation in collective endeavors – that are encountered in all civilizations and periods.” Some Islamic scholars like Safi (2000) remain unconvinced: The pragmatic arguments for the universality of human rights are problematic, because they either completely overlook the significant impact cultural differentiation has on values and perceptions, or ignore the fact that agreements through UN reflect, more often than not, political compromises by political elites, rather than normative consensus. Further, many of the ruling elites who pretend to speak on the behalf of the peoples of the developing world lack political legitimacy and public support, and have embraced ideological outlooks at odds with the surrounding cultures. In the absence of genuine democracy in the countries of the South, no one can ascertain whether, or to what extent, official policies reflect popular views and preferences. Certainly, the paradox of universalism and cultural relativism remains to be thorny issue to this day, but it cannot be denied that the vast majority of nations in this world, coming from virtually all political and cultural traditions, covering all economic subdivisions, have come together to adopt and ratify the main international human rights and international humanitarian law instruments. Moreover, crystallized human rights principles are considered by international law as “ergo omnes” obligations that are binding on the world. Islamic jurisprudence developed over fourteen centuries from the first Islamic revelation in 622 AD to contemporary times. Says Bassiouni (1982): Islamic jurisprudence has also been influenced in its evolution by the various cultures and social systems which it has encompassed. Furthermore, the spread of Islam in time was also across much of the earth’s surface, extending at its height from southern France to Central Asia, assimilating races and transforming cultures without destroying them. Islam took root and spread among so many peoples enduring for so long, notwithstanding human cultural differences, because one of its basic premises is equality in diversity. Islamic legal thinkers are in agreement that the essential feature of the Qur’an, the Holy Book of Islam revealed to Mohammed, is that it is not a code of law. Hence, it is perhaps more exact to characterize Islamic law as composed of the Qur’anic legislation subsequently interpreted by the succeeding generations and containing customary law of the Arabs. (Pearl, 1979). It reflects the life and aspirations of Mohammed and his followers in their attempts to build a new community from the desert wastes of Africa (ibid.) According to Bassiouni, the “universal humanism” that animates both Islam and international human rights is what binds them together. “To recognize”, he says, “this common value in the context or the rule of law which derives its source from a higher moral and ethical plane makes internationally protected human rights a fertile ground for interrelation with Islam.” And yet, there are some who look at the Islamic concept of human rights with a wary eye. The issue came to a head in 1990, when the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was entered into by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It was heralded to be a response to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which was described by Rajaie-Khorassani, Iranian representative to the United Nations, as “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” that could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the law. One prefatory clause of the Cairo document leaves little room to doubt that this is indeed a reaction to the notion of universalism espoused by the advocates of the UN-sponsored concept of International Human Rights: Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commands, which are contained in the Revealed Books of Allah and which were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages and that safeguarding those fundamental rights and freedoms is an act of worship whereas the neglect or violation thereof is an abominable sin, and that the safeguarding of those fundamental rights and freedom is an individual responsibility of every person and a collective responsibility of the entire Ummah; Generating controversy in particular is Article 24 of the Cairo Declaration which reads that: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah,” and the subsequent Article, Article 25 stating, “The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” Human rights advocates, particularly those of a western persuasion, opine that these provisions whittle down to a considerable and alarming degree, the sacrosanct and inalienable nature of human rights and freedoms. It makes human rights culture and context bound, and therefore imperils its universal application. A very good example is the principle of “due process”, particularly the right of the accused facing trial for a crime. What is clear from the western conception of due process is that it places the individual in an adversarial position against the state. There is no such concept of friction in Islam. The individual does not stand in an adversary position vis-à-vis the state but is an integral part thereof. (Bassiouni). The consequences of this relationship which flows from the concept of Islam as discussed above is that there is no apparent need to delineate individual rights in contraposition to the state. (Ibid). Corollary to this is the use of corporal punishment. Islamic law is unequivocal in its prescription of corporal or bodily punishment, believing it to be better than prison sentences because it incurs greater cost on the tax payer, the prisoner stands a greater likelihood of ending up “hardened” instead of reformed and the family of the offender is robbed of a breadwinner who should be working to provide for his or her brood. (Abdul-Kader, 2002). Hence, the types of punishment prescribed and sanctioned under Islamic law range from flogging, lashing, cutting of hands, to stoning – types which have been prohibited in most if not all Western countries. The cases of cruel and unusual punishments are by no means isolated. In Nigeria, a teenage single mother was sentenced to 180 lashes for having pre-marital sex. When she protested that she was raped by three men, her penalty was increased even further for “bringing false accusations.” In Sudan, a married person found guilty of adultery is executed by stoning; an unmarried person receives 100 lashes. In Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, a woman and a man were stoned to death in public using palm-sized stones for non-marital sex. The man died within minutes but the woman had to be finished off by dropping a large chunk of stone over her head. Moreover, a convicted thief suffers the painful and inhuman penalty of having his hand chopped off. The most-cited text that lays down this policy states that, “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands. A punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime.” (Surah al-Ma’idah, 38). Perhaps of all issues surrounding the interface between Islam and human rights, the issue of gender equality, or more specifically, the bundle of rights of women – to their bodies, to public office, to meaningful participation and representation, to name a few – is the most explosive and talked-about. It is evident that Islamic law itself is responsible for the conditioning of Muslim women and for making them believe that they occupy an inferior status. To quote from the Quran: "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their lawful slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed." [Noor; 24:31] The whole issue of wearing veils was thrown to the spotlight once more very recently, with the furor caused by comments made by UK Cabinet Minister Jack Straw regarding the wearing of veils. According to him, “he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils that would cover their faces” as it makes community relations more difficult. In his precise words, "Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day." The veil stands as a perfect and articulate symbol of the difference in Islamic and Western thinking where the issue of gender is concerned. For the Western feminist, the veil is perceived as oppressive and stifling, yet another reminder of the inferior status of women in Islamic society. The literal restrictions the burka gives on the female form could well be seen as a metaphor for the shackles that Islam puts its women in. For the devout Islamic woman, on the other hand, the veil or the “hijab” is worn proudly, and in some cases, even defiantly. It is a symbol of a distinct Islamic identity, a liberation of sorts from Western form of neo-colonialism and imperialism that to them is more stifling than any stricture from Islam. Safi (2002), however, distinguishes the rights of women in the family life with the rights of women in the family sphere. While he concedes that the rights of women as a wife and mother are indeed restricted and she must be subservient to her husband, he says that Islamic law believes in the right of women to the full flowering of her potentials in the outer realm, as for instance, involvement in politics and participation in social policy-making. Sadly, the violations to the rights of women go beyond mere discrimination, whether in the public or private sphere. For example, Islamic law provides that a husband may employ corporal punishment to punish or subdue his wife. To a large degree, women have been at the receiving end of state-sponsored cruelty. As premarital and extramarital intercourse is punished severely under Islamic law – meriting a higher punishment even than murder – it is women who suffer the most and carry the stigma. Compounding the problem is a legal system that is biased against women, even regarding her testimony in court as only ½ of the value of a man’s testimony. It is clear that this is a policy environment where, contrary to pronouncements that a women is allowed to participate fully in the public sphere, if one is female, one is continually subjected to patriarchal and chauvinist conceptions at every turn of the struggle. Certainly, there is a danger in buying wholesale the Western conception of what is just and good. Recent history has demonstrated that Western culture and governance is equally susceptible – if not more susceptible – to violence and retribution. The War on Terror of the present Bush administration, the cavalier attitude with which due process is treated particularly where “terrorists” are concerned and the U.S. v. Them complex so pervasive in right wing discourse lend credence to the idea that the Western world is equally guilty of intolerance and savagery. However, the question is this: which policy framework makes it more difficult to implement human rights and insist on them? A careful analysis of Islamic law as manifested in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights would tend to reveal that it is impossible to invoke human rights principles under a system where what is given primacy is the stability of the state, the maintenance of culture and tradition and the binding force of religion. In the United States, for instance, though we see wanton violations of due process and human rights committed by the Bush administration, the grand majesty of the law may at least be invoked to seek redress and to call policies wrong or reprehensible. Under Islamic law, what form of redress may be had by a woman about to be stoned for engaging in premarital sex? With that said, there are still positive changes to look forward to. The mere fact that the CDHR was entered into by the Islamic states means that there is at least recognition of the need to adhere to a basic human rights framework and that states may no longer act with impunity and expect no censure from the international community. Certainly, there should also be moves to actively pursue human rights offenders and punish human rights violations – whether large or small scale. There is a great ethical and moral imperative to exhume the past if only to serve as lessons for the future. Through vigilance and continuous lobbying and sowing the seeds through human rights education, we make it possible to envision a future where human rights are protected, diversity is celebrated and ever individual is allowed to blossom to his or her fullest potential. SOURCES Baderin, Mashood. International Human Rights and Islamic Law (Oxford Monographs in International Law). London: Oxford University Press. 2005. Bassiouni, M. Cherif, Sources of Islamic Law and the Protection of Human Rights in the Islamic Criminal Justice System, in: Bassiouni (ed.) The Islamic Criminal Justice System, London 1982 Pearl, David. A Textbook on Muslim Personal Law. Cambrdige, 1979. Qutb, M. Islam: The Misunderstood religion. 249 (Arablic 6th Ed., trans. 1976) Ramadan, Tariq. Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. (Oxford University Press, 2004.) Safi, Louay. Tensions and Transitions in the Modern World. (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2003) Read More