Cultural Relativism Sharia Law, Research Paper Example

The Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) is subject to cultural relativist thinking, the idea that universalism or equal human dignity is relative or subjective to a cultural interpretation, which Sharia Law utilizes to violate UDHR terms. Sharia Law is the legal system Islamic regions of the world refer to for their governing principles. Its policies and regulations are based on the Qur’an, which is treated as the word of God. The guidelines of the document are intended to help one exemplify the life of the prophet Muhammad. Sharia laws are implemented through the rulings of Islamic scholars, referred to as fatwas. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), was adopted on December 10^th, 1948, by the United Nations General Assembly, it was the very first ever worldwide attempt to put a stop to global atrocities  that occurred during the Holocaust. Essentially, the main accomplishment of the UDHR was that it established an internationally recognized standard for equal human dignity. Despite being internationally recognized, the terms enacted by UDHR are difficult to enforce; and due to the fact they can be interpreted through a scope of cultural relativism, Sharia Law inherently violates these terms with no real repercussion.  Thesis Statement: It is the view of this author that Sharia law violates the International Bill of Rights through a significantly skewed case of cultural relativism, and the following will take a deeper look why this happens and why international law is limited in its ability to enforce the violations.

In his National Review article on cultural relativism and sharia law, Andrew Bostom refers to sharia law as crushing and dehumanizing. To prove it he breaks down a list of examples, noting that freedom of conscience and speech is regulated through force with imprisonment, beatings, or death. He notes that “discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Bostom sheds light on some very controversial and difficult aspects of sharia law” (Bostom, p.1). The main difference between totalitarian Islamic law, the form of state governance popular in the west and modern Church canon law, is that Canon law is deliberately confined to religious affairs. In this sense, Sharia law embeds itself into Islamic society as both legal doctrine and religious text, making it very difficult of international human rights law to intervene. This broad scope of Sharia Law demonstrates how it violates the International Bill of Rights; now, lets take a look at more detailed examples carried out in policy of specif Islamic regions of the world.

An example of Sharia Law violation of UDHR regulations can be seen in the policies of Nigeria. Starting in 1999, Nigeria began implementing strict interpretation of Sharia Law. New regulations enacted in 2002, enact gender segregation and traditional punishment of offenses based of the Qur’an. Women in Nigeria are banned from sharing buses or taxis with men or working outside the home. Another example can be seen in Saudi Arabia’s attempt to adopt the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women (CEDAW). The international covenant which was ratified  as a part of UDHR by 185 countries, accounting for over 90% of the United Nations,  was signed by the Saudi government in 2000. Despite signing the covenant, in Saudi Arabia, women can still not drive automobiles or exercise many basic human rights without the permission of a guardian. The way Saudi Arabia was able to circumvent the CEDAW was by applying reservations to the terms of signing the covenant. The main reservations entailed the Saudi government was not obligated to follow paragraphs 2 of article 9 of the covenant, which reads, “States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children” (Colombo, p.1). Critics have argued by the Saudi Arabian government applying this reservations to the covenant it’s the same as if the government never signed the document. Women are still not considered equal in Saudi Arabia. For example, even when the Saudi Arabian government attempted to host a national dialogue on woman’s equality rights in a 2004 Medina Conference the men and women engaging in the dialogue had to do so through a closed-circuit television while being separated in different rooms. This is a prime example of how the Saudi Arabian government’s strict adherence to Sharia Law and its ideological stances interfere with the country’s ability to abide by UDHR regulations and this is further enhanced by the U.N.’s inability to enforce the laws.

Essentially what the International Bill of Human Rights attempts to do is to spread tolerance throughout the world, or at least among its participants. As a part of the International Bill of Human Rights, the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) covenant entails the granting of economic, cultural and social rights. To over 160 stakeholders/regions, specifically, Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories. The covenant has 31 articles divided into five parts. Article 1 declares all people have the right to self-determination. This entails people having the right to be able to choose their political status to go after their economic social and cultural aspirations, religion, and the overall ability to pursue their dreams.  The problem is there are political implications that come with adopting tolerance that the U.N. fails to enforce. Stephen Gardbaum, in his text “Human rights as international constitutional rights” breaks down the hierarchies as they relate to international human rights and domestic human rights. In regards to Hierarchies of Importance when assessing which bill of rights takes precedence, the international or the domestic, in particular conflict, the author notes, that there is a lot of disagreement surrounding this topic, but for the most part he states it would be extremely rare for their to be a conflict between state law obligations and international obligations. He notes that the scenario specifically where hierarchy may play a role is in situations where international laws that the international bill of rights could actually enforce are violated, because international  authorities generally do not have jurisdiction to resolve most issues. Likewise, as the Saudi Arabian example shows, Islamic regions who implement strict adherence to Sharia Law are unable to abide by UDHR policies event when their government’s sign them into action. Scholars attribute this inability on the behalf of Islamic countries to followup on U.N. Mandates to cultural relativism.

Advocates for cultural relativism claim that most rights and regulations that attempt to  govern morality are encoded and thus depend on cultural context. Alston, Philip, and Goodman note that, “the Universal Declaration rests on a few basic postulates, beliefs and assumptions. Perhaps the fundamental postulate, one that embraces all human beings, is equal human dignity” (Alston, Philip, and Goodman, p.533). The authors further points out that the concept of equal human dignity is based primarily on the measure of who counts as a fellow human. The problem with this concept is that equal human dignity relative to who is considered human. The authors reaffirm this idea when they say, “for most white people, until very recently, most Black people did not so count. For most Christians, up until the seventeenth century or so, most heathens did not so count. For the Nazis, Jews did not so count. For most males in countries in which the average annual income is under four thousand dollars, most females do not so count” (Alston, Philip, and Goodman, p.533). What the authors reveal is critical to understanding the complex relationship between Sharia Law and cultural relativism as it influences the ability of Islamic regions to abide by UDHR policy. The authors show that equal human rights have been subject to cultural, or sociopolitical, interpretation since the beginning of time. It shows that governments and individuals in power have always determined who is considered human based on what was most convenient for their circumstances. This revelation gives insight into conflicts Islamic regions like Saudi Arabia have had with adopting the UDHR.

During U.N deliberations on the aspect of cultural relativism, as it should be implemented within judgments on policy violations, Saudi Arabia even attempted to literally use the concept of cultural relativism as justification to strike down the UDHR’s standing on freedom of religion. In his article on Cultural Relativism in the journal of “Current Anthropology,” Miachael Brown noted that, during these deliberations when Saudi Arabia was considering adopting the Universal Declaration, they “made the isolated claim that ‘freedom to marry and to change one’s religion were Western ideas ill suited for universal application,’ a position that garnered little support at the time” (Brown, p.366). This shows that since the adoption of the Universal Declaration, Islamic regions of the world like Saudi Arabia have been at odds with its policies and mandates. Likewise, most of these regions show now signs of real change in a direction that recognizes equal human rights under the law. For example, Most Muslim-majority countries such as Iran, Egypt, and Pakistan signed the UDHR in 1948, during the time Saudi Arabia stood at odds against the UDHR. At the time, the King felt obligated to comply with Shari’a and the Qur’an, and chose not to sign the declaration. He  argued the UDHR violated Islamic law and criticized it for failing to consider  the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries.  As Jonathan Russell, of the the London School of Economics and Political Science note points out within many of the Islamic Middle Eastern regions that were the initial adopters of the UDHR, like Iran, Egypt and Pakistan, there is a substantial population of liberal minded Muslims. Russell notes that, “moderate or liberal Muslims show that the wide diversity of traditional interpretations of the Qur’an and the Sunna that developed within two hundred years of the Prophet Muhammed is an indication for cautiousness and is evidence against enforcing religious beliefs upon others”(Russle, 1). He goes on to argue that Islam by nature is a pluralist religion that encompasses a wide spectrum of beliefs as well as a long tradition tolerance and freedom of thought. He suggests that documents published in the name of Islam with the intention of forcing the religion, and laws that undermine this intellectual tradition, on other parties are more political acts of bureaucracy than having to do with traditional Islamic religious standards.

In sum, Sharia law violates the International Bill of Rights through a significantly skewed case of cultural relativism. This can clearly be seen in how Sharia law inherently pays no regard for the same rights or freedoms as most do in non-Muslim regions.  The prime example of this can be seen with how Sharia Law treats Adultery, “Adultery: Punishment for illegal Sex: It is matter of giving life NOT taking life, and a baby may be born because of this adultery (Rape): The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day” (“Islamic Sharia Law,” 52). The notion that one would be physically assaulted for adultery violates international economic, social and cultural Rights. It does so in the sense that people are allowed to choose their own religion, but within an Islamic state Sharia Law and Islamic faith are forced upon them. This in turn results in the violation of a host of personal rights. The most profound violation of human rights perpetuated by Islamic regions of the world is the inability to treat women equal to men under the law.

Work Cited

Alston, Philip, and Goodman Ryan. “International Human Rights: The Successor to International  Human Rights in Context.” (2013).

Bostom, Adrew, “Sharia Denial and Cultural Relativism.” The National Review. (2012).

Brown, Michael F. “Cultural Relativism 2.0.” Current Anthropology 49.3 (2008): 363-383.

Colombo, Valentina. “Human Rights vs. Sharia: Violence Against Women.” Gatestone Institute (2009).

Gardbaum, Stephen. “Human rights as international constitutional rights.”European Journal of International Law 19.4 (2008): 749-768.

Russell, Jonathan. “Human Rights: The Universal Declaration vs The Cairo Declaration” the London School of Economics and Political Science.