Effect On Human Rights In Muslim Countries example essay topic

Religious institution has a profound impact on any and every society. Social norms, mores, and expectations are mostly defined by our belief systems, even if we ourselves don't practice a religion. Government too is always based on common agreement upon what is right and wrong, and who is to rule. A society can experience violent opposition and revolutions because of radical religious groups. There's no doubt about it. In any society, small or large, primitive or modern, religious institution plays a leading role.

Islam is no exception. This paper will explore three critical aspects of Islamic society. The first is Democracy. Just how incompatible is an Islamic society with democracy? Secondly, how are women treated by Islamic society?

Are they treated as equal to men, and why? Lastly, is Islam conducive to human rights? Is this reflected by Islamic governments? All of these questions and more will be considered in the following.

It's definitely not the first time it's been asked. Can Democracy really function in an Islamic society? Some say yes, some say no. But the answer doesn't seem to be quite so black and white. The Muslim countries in the world today are all different, and all have or have had different relationships with democracy.

In order to better understand the answer to this question, we must look at some of the factors that influence the relationship between Islam and Democracy. According to Daniel E. Price, there are seven major categories of influences on the relationship between Islam and Democracy. These are historical influences, regime strength, regime strategy for dealing with political Islam, Islamic political groups, modernization / economics /demographics, politicized sectarian, ethnic, linguistic, or class cleavages, and minority religious groups. In history, there have been several notable aspects of society that have influence on Muslim countries. Colonialism has obviously induced a sort of backfiring from Radical Islam, and it is for this reason that most Muslim Countries that have had a history of Colonialism have a stronger presence of Radical Islam. These countries include Algeria, Syria, and Egypt.

There is a stronger lingering hostility toward ideas attributed to the West (liberalism and democracy) and Westernized classes because of their association with the former colonial overlords. (Price, 1999: 138). International conflict such as defeats in wars contribute to humiliation for many Muslim groups, and exacerbates their Radicalism. Also, enforced secularization of a government has historically enraged groups and caused them to typically resort to violence. When authoritarian regimes can't control societies, it has a negative impact on democracy.

A weak regime can be a result of things such as an unstable or ineffective bureaucracy and economy, rapid social change of any kind, and often dependence on other world powers such as the United States. It is quite evident when looking at history that the strategy of a regime to control its people is a deciding factor in whether Democracy will be a result. When studying past Regime strategies, it's obvious that whenever repression is used, some form of Anarchy, revolution, or Authoritarianism will result. This was the case in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and partially in Iran and Algeria. Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, and partially Iran and Algeria all used some form of accommodation or co- and all resulted in some form of Democracy. Clearly a repressive regime is not conducive to Democracy, while accommodation is.

It is evident that repression nearly always results in authoritarianism and violence. This is often the case in Muslim countries. If a government is a secular government, the anger of the Islamic political groups will be exacerbated even further. Islamic political groups have an enormous impact on a regime. Islamic political groups inside Muslim countries will not hesitate to let the government know if it's not happy with any part of it. Foreign governments are not exempt from their outpour's of anger, as the United States has learned all too well.

Islamic political groups as religious institutions do not seem to be comfortable with the idea of Democracy, but if a government is not repressive, and is very friendly to Islam, the groups tend not to be too un accepting of it. If a group is not happy with a government, revolution is usually a very viable option for them, as happened in Afghanistan. John J. Macionis writes that revolutions share a number of traits: Rising expectations, unresponsive government, radical leadership by intellectuals, and establishing a new legitimacy. A prime example of this was the Shah of Iran, which was overthrown in 1979. Cleavages have been shown to widen the divide between governments and Islamic opposition groups.

These include sectarian, regional, and class cleavages. These are what intensified the animosity between the Assad regime and the Islamic Action Front in Syria. (Price, 1999: 143). If ethnicity or linguistics are politicized then they can be a very serious cleavage as well. Minority religious groups in Muslim countries have proven to radicalize political Islam in that country, not by fault of their own, but simply because that is the nature of Islamic religious institutions. These groups are usually viewed by Islamic political groups as "agents of the West", and serve as a nasty reminder of colonialism to them.

In Islamic law, Jews and Christians are considered second-class citizens. Other religions are not recognized. When they are granted equal civil rights, it is likely that anger from radical Islamic groups will follow. Economic development is viewed as a prerequisite for the growth of Democracy. Most Muslim countries are poor nations, so this is a definite hindrance to Democracy. It is also evident that extreme wealth in leadership is not conducive to democracy either, because usually the leaders will hoard their wealth.

Obviously this case is not uncommon, as demonstrated by Saddam Hussein, former Iraqi president, who owned thirteen palaces, while many of his people did not even have enough food for proper nourishment. Poverty will also increase the likeliness of authoritarian rule, which is not Democratic. Modernization has proved to both support and attack Democracy. Social mobility, defined by John J. Macionis as "change in one's position in the social hierarchy" (Macionis, 1992: 188), will probably make a country more democratic, but if there is disruption in the modernization process, it will probably be less democratic. Modernization is not a favorable thing in most Muslim countries. Clearly Democracy is not an impossibility for Islamic governments.

However, it is evident that there are a significant number of major hindrances keeping most Muslim countries from being democratic. One of the most heavily criticized aspects of Islam and Islamic governments is their attitudes and policies towards women. Some of these include things like clothing, loitering, and spousal dominance. The expectations of female behavior are defined by the Qur " an. There are, however, some misconceptions of what the Qur " an actually says about women, because Muslim societies don't reflect it very well.

The Qur " an does say that women are the same in relation to Allah as men. Muhammad, the "prophet" who founded Islam, told his followers that the "best of you is those who are best to their wives". That doesn't seem to be a commandment heeded very well by most Muslims today. One of the defining distinctions that the Qur " an makes between men and women is the division of labor, which can be seen in most any society, of any time. The Qur " an refers to women as the "garments" for men. It is noted that it is important for a Muslim to respect his or her mother.

Women play a subdued, some would say oppressed, role in Muslim society. One of the most important things for women to observe is modesty. This includes huge social norms and mores. Women are not to wear revealing or tight clothing to anyone but their wives or certain relatives which are listed in the Qur " an. Muhammad instructed that women should cover their entire bodies except their face and hands after puberty. This law is largely enforced in Muslim countries, and is a major social norm.

Men, on the other hand, are only required to cover their naval to their knee. It is also expected that when a man and a woman look at each other, they are not to do so more than once, and are to lower their eyes, to prevent amorous glances. The exceptions are only in places such as doctors' offices, courtrooms, or when her life is in danger. In addition, no man is to touch any part of a woman's body, under any circumstances, unless it is totally necessary. The husband and perhaps some family members are of course exception to this. In most all Muslim countries, women are not permitted to go anywhere without their husbands, or even "loiter" outside their house.

Women who seem naked when they are clothed, walk flirting ly, or "plait their heads like humps of camels" are seen as women who will dwell in hell. Beautification is somewhat accepted as long as it does not injuriously interfere with the limbs or body. They are not to intentionally display it to others. Muhammad cursed women who had tattoos, sharpened or spaced teeth, plucked hair or eyebrows, or used hair pieces, because it changes the creation of Allah. All these things are social mores for women in Muslim countries.

Women are allowed to display decoration, however, to other Muslim women, and to select men such as her husband, father, grandfather, and nephews. They are not to attend baths or swimming pools, and both men and women are not permitted to attend any kind of dance, or a gymnasium, because it could lead to removal of clothes. Even considering all of this and the implications they produce, there is a very simple but important fact that is so widely overlooked: Muslim women generally do accept their position, status, and role in society. In fact, many Muslim women who are asked about this reply that they feel they have it a lot easier than Western women, because they are not ever expected to both work, raise children, and look after the home. I have personally heard of Muslim women who are appalled that we in the West are appalled at how they are treated, and in turn say that they feel "absolutely liberated" by their way of life. Given the above presented information, which is enforced law in most Muslim countries, I think it would be difficult to argue that Muslim societies are not Patriarchal societies.

John J. Macionis defines Patriarchy as "A form of social organization in which males dominate females". (Macionis, 1992: 465). I do find it odd, yet somewhat not surprising, that in the class which I'm writing this paper for there was no hesitation to point out and attack, nearly every day, the Patriarchy in our own society, yet failed to mention even once out of my recollection Muslim societies being Patriarchal -- Very Patriarchal at that. And anyone who argues that the United States is a more Patriarchal society than Muslim societies has some research to do... or needs to turn on the daily news. Islam is widely viewed as a religion that is, to say the least, less than conducive to human rights. First appearances, however, can be deceiving.

There have been many attempts in the past especially by the United States to promote universal human rights. There has been significant resistance to it from Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia's refusal to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. All efforts to advocate universal human rights stumble upon a significant dilemma. First off, singling out a certain culture or religion is seen as a bias, while even if they were able to single that culture out, it can be easily dismissed by the claim that that culture has a different conception of human rights. (Price, 1999: 159). Cultural relativism ultimately hinders the validity of cross-national studies of human rights.

No one can really deny this. When Iraq thinks it's okay to publicly behead a woman with no trial for criticizing the government's health care system, they hardly receive criticism from other nations, because "it's their culture". Muslims also view universal human rights as a mere ploy by the Western Christian world to strengthen dominance over the developing non-Christian countries. They also claim that the Western nations hold double standards because they themselves have committed a variety of human rights violations, which are usually swept under the rug, while Muslim countries are public lambasted. (Price, 1999: 158).

Western criticism of human rights is viewed only as long-standing hostility to Islam. The Qur " an is considered an amorphous doctrine, and can be interpreted in multiple ways. What is most troublesome, however, is the Sharia. The Sharia is the law of Islam, and is based largely upon the Qur " an, yet not totally. What is most troubling about it is the manner in which it regards women and non-Muslims, which has been illustrated. There is law in it derived from other historical societies at the time it was penned, such as Arab, Roman, and Jewish law.

Naturally, this is reflected in modern Muslim societies, since it is adhered to so strictly. It is also important to keep in mind that Islamic law was developed in response to the social conditions of 1,000 years ago. In light of this background, I will first discuss the rights of religious minorities. As already stated, non-Muslims are absolutely second-class citizens in Islamic society, according to the Sharia. Jews and Christians are granted status of what is called, because they are considered "people of the book". They are allowed to practice their religion if they pay a tributary tax, but are not entitled to hold office, serve in the military, or convert Muslims to their religion.

Their court testimonies are also considered less credible. Pagans, pantheists, and nonbelievers have no rights at all. Their only choices are conversion or death. The second issue, is the question of whether the needs of the individual, or the society come first.

Liberalism's concern is protecting the rights of the individuals. The Bill of Rights is a prime example of shielding the people from the arbitrary power of the government. Obviously this clashes with the ideologies of Islam, because it even states in the Qur " an that Muslims do not face God as individuals, but as a community. So even looking beyond cultural relativism, it seems that in Islamic culture, it's not so much that they view human rights differently, as much as it is that they just don't think they are as important as those in the West do.

In other words, the ideology behind Sharia (Islamic law) is that if they can first perfect their society and culture, it will lead to the perfection of mankind, and so consequently the rights of individuals are most certainly expendable seeing as they will benefit in the end from a better society. Islamic government also places a huge emphasis on order. Order comes, in most cases, before individual rights. Order enforced by even the harshest of governments is considered better than chaos. This is why abusive government tends to be so tolerated in Muslim societies.

However, the perception of these governments' abusive behavior being solely the fault of Sharia can be deceiving. Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan all have some of the poorest human rights records, and all have governments based on Sharia. But all of their governments were abusive even before Islamic-oriented regimes rose to power. In fact, Syria and Iraq both have some of the worst human rights records in the modern world, and both are (or were) secular regimes.

One must keep in mind however that both of these nations are arguably extreme Muslim nations, regardless of regime, and have been led by Muslims. Most Muslim countries signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Pakistan's UN representative even criticized Saudi Arabia for claiming that it violated Islamic law. Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria all have existing human rights groups. Morocco even created a minister for human rights as a result of their group, which was indeed somewhat repressed by much of the government. One's natural response is probably the question, "Is this conflicting evidence?" At first glance, it appears so.

But a closer look would indicate that the efforts made in these nations in favor of human rights are arguably mere responses to the lack thereof, and of course more importantly to the rest of the world. One of the many things modernization brought about in the 20th century was a focus and new attention toward human rights. Before, it was probably hardly considered in Muslim countries, because it was a relatively foreign idea. Once communication rapidly enhanced simultaneously with modern culture, these ideas underwent cultural diffusion, and obviously encountered a large amount of resistance. But it was and is somewhat accepted, obviously, because there is nothing concrete in the Sharia or Qur " an that directly renounces the notion of human rights; Not to mention the pressure from the modern world. When it comes down to it, there is more evidence that the factors of religious minorities, economic conditions, modernization, and cleavages all collectively have had more of an effect on human rights in Muslim countries than Islam itself.

But the fact is, Islam is something that all of these nations have very much in common. My conclusion is similar to that for Democracy: Although Islam does not directly prohibit or hinder human rights, it is not conducive to them. In addition to this, technical secularization of a government will not necessarily endorse human rights, but it is rather the influence of Islamic political culture on that government and its members that will be detrimental to its respect for human rights. For three separate issues, I have three separate, but somewhat similar, conclusions, and a bit more insight. Firstly, Democracy is not an impossibility for an Islamic regime. There are minor Democratic Islamic countries in existence.

However, there are major hindrances to Democracy, such as religious minorities and class cleavages. Not everyone is considered equal according to the Qur " an, which is an idea not compliant with true Democracy. Nonetheless, it can and does function to some degree in Muslim countries. The most apparent hindrance is its association with colonialism and the West, both of which are generally not looked highly upon in the Muslim world.

Second, women are considered equal to men in their relation to Allah according to the Qur " an. However, this does not appear to be the case in Muslim society. Clearly Muslim society is inherently Patriarchal. However, Muslim women are much more accepting and defensive of their position than those in the West perceive or assume.

Third, the case of human rights is very similar to the case of Democracy when it comes to Islamic political culture. There is nothing in their religious law that directly prohibits human rights from being of importance to a government, but it is not conducive to it. The community is in arguably more important than the individual in Muslim society. Some call this downright tyranny, while others call it just the Muslim way of life.

Furthermore, the reason that these three issues are of such significant concern to those in the West is that they are so conflicting with common Western ideology. There is nothing in the Qur " an or Sharia that actually directly confirms that these three aspects of Islamic society are exactly as we in the West perceive. The problem is that the way that Muslims interpret their scriptures is contrary and even offensive to the West and its common ideologies. Lastly, the criticism and influence from the West toward Islamic culture, in addition to historical, only intensifies their rejection of the West and its criticism, and actually seems to make the problems concerning Democracy, women, and human rights even worse.

Bibliography

Esposito, John L. 1980 Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change Syracuse University Press: Syracuse.
Macionis, John J. 1992 Society: The Basics Lehigh Press, Inc.
New Jersey. Price, Daniel E. 1999 Islamic Political Culture, Democracy, and Human Rights: A Comparative Study Praeger Publishers: Connecticut.
Spell berg, D.A. 1994 Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of A'ish a Bint Abi Bakr Columbia University Press: New York.
Turner, Bryan S. 1974 Weber and Islam Western Printing Services Ltd: Great Britain.