*
2:20 PM
*
ISLAM
*
AND THE UNITED NATIONS
*
COMMISSION
*
ON HUMAN RIGHTS
*
By my dear friend and noted scholar,
*
Dr. German Munoz, Ph.D.
*
*
*
THE KORAN
*
*
Writing the essay “Reasons for American Withdrawal from the United Nations,” now found at www.drgermanmunoz.com, was a painful experience. After all, most of us are taught that the United Nations is the last hope for humanity to bring forth world peace, prosperity, and freedom. Who could be against these wonderful ideals?
However, the United Nations has now become a threat to national sovereignty, peace, prosperity, freedom, and to life itself. It is impotent in preventing genocide. A significant number of countries do not even abide by its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document whose first drafts were developed by Catholic Cuban intellectuals. Ironically, some of the members of its Human Rights Council are murdering dictatorships.
Many countries are responsible for the moral decline, corruption, and betrayal of the United Nations, but Communist and Islamic states top the list. As a result of their intolerance, violence, and dictatorial rule many of the original core principles of the institution have been undermined. Their bloc voting at the United Nations prevents much needed reforms and the expelling of members who violate the UN Charter and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Sadly ,the United States, a country where 80% of the population is Christian, contributes financially to an organization whose Communist and Islamic states have made Christians the most persecuted group in the world. The United Nations is either unwilling or unable to stop this persecution. Other groups are also targeted. And yet, these criminal countries are not expelled from the United Nations. In fact, they are actually running much of the UN bureaucracy.
Human Rights and Islam
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) of the United Nations expresses some of the highest aspirations of humanity. Unfortunately, a literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith, as well as the desire to implement Islamic Law (Sharia), would put Islam and Muslim countries in conflict with many of the articles of the Declaration.
Article I advocates equal rights, but women and non-Muslims are inferior under Islamic law.
Article 2 is against religious discrimination, but the infidels are supposed to be discriminated, humiliated, over-taxed, or killed according to the Koran and the Hadith.
Article 3, urges protection of the right to life, liberty and security, but these liberties are not extended in parts of Islam to the unbelievers, for unbelief is, for many literalist Muslims, the greatest sin which should not be tolerated.
Article 4 is against slavery, but slavery is allowed in the Koran.
Article 5 is against torture, but the Koran, the Hadith, and Islamic Law, allow crucifixion and amputations, among other types of tortures.
Article 6 recognizes the value of a free person before the law, but there is little notion in Islam of a person who can make free choices.
Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 support the rights of the accused person to a fair trial, but equality, good faith, truth and justice do not play major roles in Islam as does submission to Allah's will. Revenge and honor killing are officially sanctioned, non-Muslims cannot testify against a Muslim under Sharia law, and the evidence that can be presented by women is restricted, leading often to their murders.
Article 16 respects the right to marry by men and women, but under Islamic law women and non-Muslims do not have equal rights.
Article 18 defends the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to change one's religion, but Muslims do not have the right to change their religion if one is born into Islamic family, and the price of apostasy can often be death, and there is no political or religious freedom accepted under literal Islam.
Article 19 allows freedom of employment, but women are not free to choose their work under Islamic law, Muslims must rule over non-Muslims, and power must belong to Muslims.
Obviously, the literal interpretation of the most important Islamic documents are in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This does not mean that all Muslims are unable to live lives compatible with the Declaration. However, for them to do so they must reinterpret the original documents or argue that many of their teachings apply only to the times of Muhammad. Many are unwilling to do so because they think that the Koran is the eternal word of Allah. At times, some of the freedom-loving Muslims simply ignore the war verses in their documents.
Inalienable Human Rights
The first theory of inalienable human rights and the argument for the removal of tyrants did not arise with Hellenes, Romans, Muslims, Chinese, Africans, Amerindians, or with other civilizations. Instead, these contributions were created by the Church between the 800’s and the 1200’s.
They began as a reflection on the revelation to Moses, particularly the insight that man was created in the image and likeness of God with the powers to reason, to choose freely and to love beyond the group. The Church continued this intellectual work with the reflection on the teachings of the Christ.
This body of thought came useful as the Church battled the German emperors and other enemies. The world has forgotten that behind the Magna Carta of 1215 was the Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury and a Judeo-Christian conception of rights, as well as the theory of interposition to remove tyrants who violated the right to property, life, and others.
This theory of human rights was continued after the 1500’s with Protestant reflections on the matter. The Protestants promoted the idea that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Their thinking influenced Brutus, Locke, Jefferson and many others and led. Unfortunately, there is no Islamic contribution to the idea of personal human rights.
Allah is not Christ and Islam is not Christianity
Perhaps the differences between Christianity and Islam when it comes to human rights and other topics can be explained in part by some theological contrasts:
· Allah is very far away and removed from humanity, but the Christian God, who is a Trinity, created man in their own image and likeness, and then God became man and lived among us.
· Allah is a master, but the Christian God is a Father, and if He is a Father, man is not a slave, like in Islam, but His child, His heir and even His friend.
· Allah is beyond human understanding, but the Christian God, whose essence is love, is revealed to us by Christ.
· Allah does as he pleases with man, sometimes making him do good and at other times making him do bad, but the Christian God created man with a free will so that man can freely choose good and avoid evil.
· Allah urges Muslims to be merciful only with each other, but the Christian God commands that we love God, that we love neighbor, that we love ourselves, and even that we love our enemies.
· Allah’s main desire is one of submission of all to Islam, but the Christian God’s main desire is for all to spend eternity with Him.
· Allah fuses political, military, and religious authority in one person, but the Christian God reveals that we should give to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and to God the things which are God’s.
· Allah wants fighting to be obligatory, but the Christian God makes love and forgiveness mandatory.
· Allah demands submissiveness from man, but the Christian God became man to redeem and to serve humanity.
Conclusion
The truth is that from literal Islam you cannot get to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is intellectually impossible. They are two totally different world views. One is obsessed with submission. The other one is grounded on the desire for freedom which the human person, created in the image and likeness of God, needs to become fully human.
Good intentioned people often argue that literal Islam is compatible with our Western freedoms and with human rights. Perhaps they want all of us to get along so that we can live in peace. They are even willing to ignore some views which literal Muslims have which would make it impossible for peaceful coexistence to take place. Some of these ideas have to do with killing us. Yet, these good people ignore the war verses because they treasure social harmony.
This desire for peace at all cost, which some people have, was used by the Communists, the Fascists, and the Nazis to convince good and well-intentioned people during the 1920’s, 1930’s, and 1940’s to join them in broad popular fronts which appeared peaceful but which were actually controlled by violent men. Then, at the appropriate time, the truth was revealed and the killing began. Therefore, we need to learn that the pursuit of the truth is most important to keep the people free and safe.
Ironically, the only way that we can help freedom-loving, moderate Muslims survive and expand their numbers in their fight against those who want to abolish our inalienable human rights is to intellectually and politically defeat those Muslims seeking to impose literal Islam on the rest of us. Our immigration policies, security clearance processes, business and cultural environments and other concerns should ensure that the “children of freedom” be kept apart from the “children of forced submissiveness”.
*
THE KORAN*
*
*
Is Islam Compatible with
Is Islam Compatible with
*
the Universal Declaration of
*
Human Rights of the United Nations?
Human Rights of the United Nations?
*
*
By: German Munoz, Ph.D.
By: German Munoz, Ph.D.
*
March 3, 2011
March 3, 2011
*
*
The Dream is Dead
*
The Dream is Dead
*
*
Writing the essay “Reasons for American Withdrawal from the United Nations,” now found at www.drgermanmunoz.com, was a painful experience. After all, most of us are taught that the United Nations is the last hope for humanity to bring forth world peace, prosperity, and freedom. Who could be against these wonderful ideals?
However, the United Nations has now become a threat to national sovereignty, peace, prosperity, freedom, and to life itself. It is impotent in preventing genocide. A significant number of countries do not even abide by its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document whose first drafts were developed by Catholic Cuban intellectuals. Ironically, some of the members of its Human Rights Council are murdering dictatorships.
Many countries are responsible for the moral decline, corruption, and betrayal of the United Nations, but Communist and Islamic states top the list. As a result of their intolerance, violence, and dictatorial rule many of the original core principles of the institution have been undermined. Their bloc voting at the United Nations prevents much needed reforms and the expelling of members who violate the UN Charter and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Sadly ,the United States, a country where 80% of the population is Christian, contributes financially to an organization whose Communist and Islamic states have made Christians the most persecuted group in the world. The United Nations is either unwilling or unable to stop this persecution. Other groups are also targeted. And yet, these criminal countries are not expelled from the United Nations. In fact, they are actually running much of the UN bureaucracy.
Human Rights and Islam
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) of the United Nations expresses some of the highest aspirations of humanity. Unfortunately, a literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith, as well as the desire to implement Islamic Law (Sharia), would put Islam and Muslim countries in conflict with many of the articles of the Declaration.
Article I advocates equal rights, but women and non-Muslims are inferior under Islamic law.
Article 2 is against religious discrimination, but the infidels are supposed to be discriminated, humiliated, over-taxed, or killed according to the Koran and the Hadith.
Article 3, urges protection of the right to life, liberty and security, but these liberties are not extended in parts of Islam to the unbelievers, for unbelief is, for many literalist Muslims, the greatest sin which should not be tolerated.
Article 4 is against slavery, but slavery is allowed in the Koran.
Article 5 is against torture, but the Koran, the Hadith, and Islamic Law, allow crucifixion and amputations, among other types of tortures.
Article 6 recognizes the value of a free person before the law, but there is little notion in Islam of a person who can make free choices.
Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 support the rights of the accused person to a fair trial, but equality, good faith, truth and justice do not play major roles in Islam as does submission to Allah's will. Revenge and honor killing are officially sanctioned, non-Muslims cannot testify against a Muslim under Sharia law, and the evidence that can be presented by women is restricted, leading often to their murders.
Article 16 respects the right to marry by men and women, but under Islamic law women and non-Muslims do not have equal rights.
Article 18 defends the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to change one's religion, but Muslims do not have the right to change their religion if one is born into Islamic family, and the price of apostasy can often be death, and there is no political or religious freedom accepted under literal Islam.
Article 19 allows freedom of employment, but women are not free to choose their work under Islamic law, Muslims must rule over non-Muslims, and power must belong to Muslims.
Obviously, the literal interpretation of the most important Islamic documents are in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This does not mean that all Muslims are unable to live lives compatible with the Declaration. However, for them to do so they must reinterpret the original documents or argue that many of their teachings apply only to the times of Muhammad. Many are unwilling to do so because they think that the Koran is the eternal word of Allah. At times, some of the freedom-loving Muslims simply ignore the war verses in their documents.
Inalienable Human Rights
The first theory of inalienable human rights and the argument for the removal of tyrants did not arise with Hellenes, Romans, Muslims, Chinese, Africans, Amerindians, or with other civilizations. Instead, these contributions were created by the Church between the 800’s and the 1200’s.
They began as a reflection on the revelation to Moses, particularly the insight that man was created in the image and likeness of God with the powers to reason, to choose freely and to love beyond the group. The Church continued this intellectual work with the reflection on the teachings of the Christ.
This body of thought came useful as the Church battled the German emperors and other enemies. The world has forgotten that behind the Magna Carta of 1215 was the Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury and a Judeo-Christian conception of rights, as well as the theory of interposition to remove tyrants who violated the right to property, life, and others.
This theory of human rights was continued after the 1500’s with Protestant reflections on the matter. The Protestants promoted the idea that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Their thinking influenced Brutus, Locke, Jefferson and many others and led. Unfortunately, there is no Islamic contribution to the idea of personal human rights.
Allah is not Christ and Islam is not Christianity
Perhaps the differences between Christianity and Islam when it comes to human rights and other topics can be explained in part by some theological contrasts:
· Allah is very far away and removed from humanity, but the Christian God, who is a Trinity, created man in their own image and likeness, and then God became man and lived among us.
· Allah is a master, but the Christian God is a Father, and if He is a Father, man is not a slave, like in Islam, but His child, His heir and even His friend.
· Allah is beyond human understanding, but the Christian God, whose essence is love, is revealed to us by Christ.
· Allah does as he pleases with man, sometimes making him do good and at other times making him do bad, but the Christian God created man with a free will so that man can freely choose good and avoid evil.
· Allah urges Muslims to be merciful only with each other, but the Christian God commands that we love God, that we love neighbor, that we love ourselves, and even that we love our enemies.
· Allah’s main desire is one of submission of all to Islam, but the Christian God’s main desire is for all to spend eternity with Him.
· Allah fuses political, military, and religious authority in one person, but the Christian God reveals that we should give to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and to God the things which are God’s.
· Allah wants fighting to be obligatory, but the Christian God makes love and forgiveness mandatory.
· Allah demands submissiveness from man, but the Christian God became man to redeem and to serve humanity.
Conclusion
The truth is that from literal Islam you cannot get to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is intellectually impossible. They are two totally different world views. One is obsessed with submission. The other one is grounded on the desire for freedom which the human person, created in the image and likeness of God, needs to become fully human.
Good intentioned people often argue that literal Islam is compatible with our Western freedoms and with human rights. Perhaps they want all of us to get along so that we can live in peace. They are even willing to ignore some views which literal Muslims have which would make it impossible for peaceful coexistence to take place. Some of these ideas have to do with killing us. Yet, these good people ignore the war verses because they treasure social harmony.
This desire for peace at all cost, which some people have, was used by the Communists, the Fascists, and the Nazis to convince good and well-intentioned people during the 1920’s, 1930’s, and 1940’s to join them in broad popular fronts which appeared peaceful but which were actually controlled by violent men. Then, at the appropriate time, the truth was revealed and the killing began. Therefore, we need to learn that the pursuit of the truth is most important to keep the people free and safe.
Ironically, the only way that we can help freedom-loving, moderate Muslims survive and expand their numbers in their fight against those who want to abolish our inalienable human rights is to intellectually and politically defeat those Muslims seeking to impose literal Islam on the rest of us. Our immigration policies, security clearance processes, business and cultural environments and other concerns should ensure that the “children of freedom” be kept apart from the “children of forced submissiveness”.
*
Dr. German Munoz, Ph.D.
*
*
*
02/28/2011
*
German,
*
Great dissertation, as always.
*
However, I feel you are going out of your way to be kind towards the UN.
*
To me for many years the UN has been totally irrelevant, toothless, unable to carry out its original mission and a hornet's nest of anti-American sentiment.
*
Its usefulness has long expired.
*
I find it outrageous that their Human Rights Commission has opted to compose over a hundred resolutions accusing Israel of human rights abuses, while it has only issued I believe just one condemning Iran.
*
Just the fact that Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, and other human rights violators sit on such commission invalidates their purpose and makes a mockery of its existence.
*
The moment I heard that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was going to Geneva to procure a resolution against Libya, actually taking several days to fly there, while thousands of innocent civilians died on the streets of Tripoli, I realized the US had no plans to intervene in the Libyan crisis.
*
An emergency weekend session of the UN Security Council to enact sanctions against Libya is another joke.
*
What are sanctions going to accomplish at this point, when the crisis is so fluid and Qaddafi is set to not only continue murdering his people but is planning on setting the nation on fire, including its oil wells?
*
Sanctions, which to me have usually been meaningless, are imposed for long term effect. This crisis is short-termed, as within days it will be decided whether Qaddafi remains in power, (which I doubt) or whether a coalition of multiple tribes succeed in toppling him from power.
*
The only solution at this point is for the US unilaterally, or along with NATO to interfere militarily to stop the genocide and bring to Libya a modicum of stability.
*
But the times have conspired against such a move, as there are three reasons why the US and Europe are taking their time thinking about such move.
*
Actually it is just one reason, MONEY.
*
1. Both Europe and the US are in critical economic shape, not able to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it would initially take to invade Libya.
*
2. Similarly, these nations know that were they to invade Libya and ouster Qaddafi they would need to remain in Libya a long time, and spend a lot more money preparing that nation for a democratic election, which would tie up a lot of resources, again mainly monetary, not to mention the thousands of troops needed on the ground, a luxury the US does not have.
*
3. And also tied to both above is the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. These nations have seen that the US has spent 10 years in these nations, costing it over a trillion dollars so far, and they just do not have the stomach or resources to add Libya to their nation-building group.
*
These events could not have taken place at a worst time for the West, which tell me that they for sure have been in the works for a long time, planned and manipulated by Muslim and socialist extremists salivating at the thought of filling the vacuums left in all these Islamic nations that are dropping one by one like domino pieces.
*
Terrible times are ahead of us.
*
Once extremist governments take over these nations you can kiss the Middle East goodbye, and eventually perhaps even the whole world, as they will unleash wars to invade other Arab nations and of course will carry out their one purpose for living, eradicating Israel from the face of the earth.
*
What at the beginning will be an enormous conventional war, fought on the ground and by jet fighters will soon turn into a nuclear conflagration, once Israel finds itself on the losing end.
*
Yes, they will be obliterated, but not before they land nuclear punches all over the Middle East.
*
60's Child
*
*
02/28/2011
*
German,
*
Great dissertation, as always.
*
However, I feel you are going out of your way to be kind towards the UN.
*
To me for many years the UN has been totally irrelevant, toothless, unable to carry out its original mission and a hornet's nest of anti-American sentiment.
*
Its usefulness has long expired.
*
I find it outrageous that their Human Rights Commission has opted to compose over a hundred resolutions accusing Israel of human rights abuses, while it has only issued I believe just one condemning Iran.
*
Just the fact that Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, and other human rights violators sit on such commission invalidates their purpose and makes a mockery of its existence.
*
The moment I heard that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was going to Geneva to procure a resolution against Libya, actually taking several days to fly there, while thousands of innocent civilians died on the streets of Tripoli, I realized the US had no plans to intervene in the Libyan crisis.
*
An emergency weekend session of the UN Security Council to enact sanctions against Libya is another joke.
*
What are sanctions going to accomplish at this point, when the crisis is so fluid and Qaddafi is set to not only continue murdering his people but is planning on setting the nation on fire, including its oil wells?
*
Sanctions, which to me have usually been meaningless, are imposed for long term effect. This crisis is short-termed, as within days it will be decided whether Qaddafi remains in power, (which I doubt) or whether a coalition of multiple tribes succeed in toppling him from power.
*
The only solution at this point is for the US unilaterally, or along with NATO to interfere militarily to stop the genocide and bring to Libya a modicum of stability.
*
But the times have conspired against such a move, as there are three reasons why the US and Europe are taking their time thinking about such move.
*
Actually it is just one reason, MONEY.
*
1. Both Europe and the US are in critical economic shape, not able to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it would initially take to invade Libya.
*
2. Similarly, these nations know that were they to invade Libya and ouster Qaddafi they would need to remain in Libya a long time, and spend a lot more money preparing that nation for a democratic election, which would tie up a lot of resources, again mainly monetary, not to mention the thousands of troops needed on the ground, a luxury the US does not have.
*
3. And also tied to both above is the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. These nations have seen that the US has spent 10 years in these nations, costing it over a trillion dollars so far, and they just do not have the stomach or resources to add Libya to their nation-building group.
*
These events could not have taken place at a worst time for the West, which tell me that they for sure have been in the works for a long time, planned and manipulated by Muslim and socialist extremists salivating at the thought of filling the vacuums left in all these Islamic nations that are dropping one by one like domino pieces.
*
Terrible times are ahead of us.
*
Once extremist governments take over these nations you can kiss the Middle East goodbye, and eventually perhaps even the whole world, as they will unleash wars to invade other Arab nations and of course will carry out their one purpose for living, eradicating Israel from the face of the earth.
*
What at the beginning will be an enormous conventional war, fought on the ground and by jet fighters will soon turn into a nuclear conflagration, once Israel finds itself on the losing end.
*
Yes, they will be obliterated, but not before they land nuclear punches all over the Middle East.
*
60's Child
*
*
