Cultural Relativism, Neo-Cons and the Post-Modern Left
I find it ironic and funny that right-wing Islam-bashers, who comprise a significant segment of the people always telling us Muslims to speak up against human rights abuses are largely unaware of the following stated by Irshad Manji:
Article Two of the new Iraqi constitution makes clear that “no law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed laws of Islam.” Likewise, Article Three of Afghanistan’s constitution states that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”
Washington enthusiastically endorses each constitution, indicating that the Islamization of democracy is either harmless or unstoppable. In so doing, neo-cons have succumbed to the logic of the multicultural Left: namely, that’s the way those people do things over there and who are we to tell them otherwise?
Welcome to the essence of cultural relativism, the ideology that insists there is no universal standard of human dignity or decency. Thus, anything goes as long as it doesn’t directly affect me or my kids. How individualistic. How selfish. And how revealing that when it comes to re-building Iraq and Afghanistan, cultural relativism unites the post-modern Left and the neo-conservative Right.
Nice, so while we’re trying hard to push for the desperately needed reform of numerous aspects of Islamic law, here comes the Bush administration in support of constitutions espousing the very things we’re trying to eliminate.
Ali Eteraz points out that Iraqi feminists bemoan this and why shouldn’t they? Too often, they pay a hefty price.
Dear Bush administration, I thought you’re with us against the Islamists?
More over at Irshad’s blog. Meanwhile and on a related note, check out Sudanese singer Nancy Ajaj. Sudanese conservatives loathe her. I can’t understand how they could abhor someone so sweet.
I fear that you are quite right Drima. We do need to move away from a cultural relativism, but at the same time we need not assume that a universality of culture be adopted in its place. These are two extremes on either side and we desperately need to find a specificity of culture for nations that also contains universal notions of how to interact appropriately with other nations.
As for Bush, he is a hypocrite and does not even grant real questioning. He should be indicted.
These elements of the two Constitutions are probably Nec considering the circumstances.
In either Country religious fervor is used to whip up sentiment and if the Govts. did not adopt an Islamic tone it would be a psychological advantage to the Talib/AQ/radical element.
“Look not only are they aligned with the west but the turn their back on Islam etc.” and that resonates….especially in Astan that has a rather uneducated population.
It also puts the radicals in the position of fighting an Islamic state.
Tamara,
I’m sure Mr.Assad has a transparent administration. I enjoyed the way his father dealt with opposition.
Patb,
I don’t think Assad is an issue here. And just because I am Syrian does not mean I am in full support of their government or their past/present leader.
Are you somehow saying that Bush isnt a hypocrite? or shouldnt be indicted?
Drima,
SO now you are starting to catch on to what’s happening between the Muslim World and the West. How many times have I talked about how while the certain Western countries preach human rights and democracy,they engages in regime change (even democratically elected ones )and support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding. Actually, this is not only done in the Muslim world, it is also done in the non-Muslim parts of Africa, Asia, and South America.
How many times have I posted not only on this website and many other websites this quote from the article “Today’s ‘Islamic Fascists’ Were Yesterday’s Friends” at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=9615 ?
You finally caught on.
But why does Irshad Maji blame what’s going on in Iraq on the left? They were against the invasion of Iraq? People on the left are not for sharia.
There is a ridiculous statement on Irshad Manji’s blog she writes,
Is Manji not aware that the United States had helped Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities?
How does bombing a country’s infrastructure, using depleted uranium and chemical weapons and using agent provocateurs to fuel civil war help to improve human rights in a country? IF the same thing was done to the United States, Israel, or any European coutnry the same decline in human rights would occur.
Randal,
Interesting comment but that’s not what the thread is really about. Iraq/Astan wrote the Islamic elements into their constitutions by themselves. Their choice.
“How does bombing a country’s infrastructure, using depleted uranium and chemical weapons and using agent provocateurs to fuel civil war help to improve human rights in a country?”
So I guess the Shia/Sunni murder squads are really US agent Prov. in disquise. I really think Mooky is from Detroit. The Kurd issue was invented by a low level CIA guy for fun and none of these simmering problems existed prior to US intervention.
No one helped Saddam to power, he murdered his way to the top by himself and the Baath party.
We did give him assistance while he fought the Iranians, smart move, I’d do it again. Nothing better than having two potential enemies fight it out.
That’s why we assisted the Muj when they fought the USSR, same concept. It’s called proxy warefare and worked well in both instances. It’s been going on for thousands of years and you are shocked, just shocked at the instance.
The chem weapon stuff is bullshit and you know it.
patb lists some good reasons why the Islamization of the Constitution was a practical necessity. I’m thinking of what might have happened if the US had tried to force a secular Constitution on Iraq, whether they liked it or not. Ain’t pretty.
Patb,
You really are ignorant of our history. Please do more research before making such sweeping false statements. Saddam was America’s friend, and the ‘Muj’ as you call them were all but a creation of America to fight the Soviet Union. And the CIA has and continues to be a significant player in the construction of war and the destruction of who they see fit. Just because you dont want to acknowledge the corruptness of America does not mean you can dismiss it.
Elephant wrote, “patb lists some good reasons why the Islamization of the Constitution was a practical necessity. I’m thinking of what might have happened if the US had tried to force a secular Constitution on Iraq, whether they liked it or not. Ain’t pretty.”
The United States didn’t hesitate to control the elections, how the reconstructions contracts are distributed, how the oil wealth is distributed and and built a U.S. embassy in Iraq the size of 80 football fields. And yeah it ain’t pretty.
path wrote, “So I guess the Shia/Sunni murder squads are really US agent Prov. in disquise.”
The United States and its allies have
#1) bombed the country and destroyed its infrastructure
#2) rounds up thousands of Iraqis and jails them without justification
#3) makes decisions when elections are to take place and whether the results are valid
#4) benefit more from reconstruction projects than the Iraqis
#5)can break into jails to release prisoners against the Iraqi’s governments wishes. (Remember when two British men where caught disguised as Arabs carrying explosives and weapons in their car? Their fellow British soldiers broke into the jail they were in and helped them to escape) see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=2005101
If the same thing was done to the United States, by a foreign power, there would be race wars and religious wars where no man, women or child would be safe.
The United States is responsible for much of the death and destruction in Iraq.
Tamara,
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” Old saying and relates to Saddam. Of course he was our ‘friend’ as a balance against post Pahlavi Iran.
The Muj were also an opportunity to proxy fight the Soviets, we didn’t create them by any means.
America does have problems and issues, as do all nations, but is far from corrupt.
Maybe someday we can replicate the freedoms of Syria.
“The United States didn’t hesitate to control the elections…” You are right, but does that mean you think the US should have demanded a secular Constitution? Do you think it would have been possible?
Elephant,
Considering the death and destruction the U.S. has caused, I don’t think Iraqis will accept willingly and happily whatever the Americans demand.
The United States’ main reason for invading Iraq was not to install a democratic government. It was to control the oil wealth of the county. Before the second invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had converted from using the US dollar to the euro. So the U.S. doesn’t care what type of government is in place, as long as it does the United States’ bidding.
path wrote, “No one helped Saddam to power, he murdered his way to the top by himself and the Baath party.
The Untied States did help Saddam Hussein into power. See http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
Patb,
You are a sarcastic ignorant twit that is unwilling and possibly even unable to accept and understand certain things. This may be against the policies of this website… but you are a waste of time and text.