CULTURAL DYNAMISM ANDTHE LOGIC OF ISLAMIC REFORM

The recent interest in studying the compatibility of Islam with human rights came as a result of
the increasing reassertiveness of Islamic beliefs and values in Muslim societies in the last three
decades, a phenomenon widely studied under the rubrics of Islamic resurgence, Islamic
revivalism, or Islamic fundamentalism. The reawakening of religious consciousness in Muslim
societies has been most visible in the political sphere, and has led to the increasing demand by
Islamist groups throughout the Muslim world for the reconstruction of the political and legal
systems so as to bring them into accord with the rules of Islamic law (Shari’a).
But while the various groups and individuals advocating the return of Islam as a source
of public norms, are united in advancing this common goal, they are disparately divided in their
varying visions as to what constitutes an Islamic public order. The diversity in orientations and
visions of Islamic advocates complicates the task of scholars and writers interested in examining
the phenomenon of Islamic resurgence and assessing its social impacts and political
ramifications. Faced with the overwhelming complexity of Islamic reassertiveness, some
scholars chose to ignore the differences that separate various Islamic groups, opting for a
simplistic approach in which the more radical views are taken as representative of Islamic
resurgence. This approach is more popular among international-relations specialists because, it
seems, it coincides with the-worst-scenario analysis favored by national security analysts.25 The
problem of this approach, though, is not only that it reinforces prejudices and distorts realities,
but it also prevents the development of effective foreign policy and undermines the ability of
American policy makers to influence developments in the Muslim world.
The bulk of scholars devoted to studying Islam and the Muslim world have managed,
however, to convey the complexity of Islamic resurgence by grouping the variety of views and
positions into a number of major trends. A wide range of terms have been used by various
authors. The classification list includes such terms as traditionalists, radicals, fundamentalists,
modernists, moderates, liberals, etc.26 Still, the picture which emerges out of an honest and
faithful efforts to depict reality at a specific historical moment can be as misleading and deceptive
as the picture of an acrobat taken few moments after hitting a springboard. The acrobat appears
forever suspended in the air. A person unfamiliar with the gravity force, say a citizen of an
eternal spaceship, would fail to realize that what he observes is a rare moment in the life of
human beings; even a person familiar with the law of gravity would be at loss to determine
whether the framed acrobat is moving upward or downward.Determining the dynamism and
direction of cultural reform in Muslim society, and the positioning of Islamic forces in the course
of societal change, is essential for understanding whether an Islamic political and legal reform is
compatible with human rights.Unfortunately, most of what has been written by human rights scholars on Islam’s
compatibility with human rights overlooks the question of cultural dynamism and
reform direction. Thus we find that an insightful and penetrating work as Mayer’s Islam and
Human Rights succeeds only in revealing the tension over the issues of political reform and
human rights, but not its direction. Her conclusion, therefore, appears ambivalent, if not
perplexing. “[T]he diluted rights in Islamic human rights schemes examined here,” she argues,
“should not be ascribed to peculiar features of Islam or its inherent incompatibility with human
rights.”27 Islam seems to be the source of both liberation and restriction, of both reformation
and stagnation. The question thus arises as to where does Islam stand in the context of cultural
change?
To begin with, we should recognize that the drive for Islamic reform has intensified as a
result of the realization by Muslim intellectuals that developmentalism ideologies, advocated by
Muslim ruling elites, have not led to any meaningful political or social progress in Muslim
societies, but have instead resulted in the entrenchment in power of a self-serving ruling class
whose main goal is to maintain a lavish lifestyle. In post-colonial Muslim societies, ruling elites
have worked hard for, and succeeded in, creating for themselves and their cronies islands of
plenty in the midst of oceans of poverty. Many Muslim intellectuals, alienated by the highhanded
strategies of developmentalism, became convinced that the only viable political and legal
reform is one rooted in the moral commitments of the Muslim community.
Since its inception in the middle of the nineteenth century, Islamic reform movement has
rejected the traditionalist interpretations of Islam, and embarked on an ambitious reform project,
aiming at relating Islamic beliefs and values to modern life.28 The works of Afghani, Abduh, and
Redah ? the founders of what has been termed the reform school — present us with an
unmistakably egalitarian and liberal discourse, emphasizing openness and tolerance. Early
reformists rejected the anti-intellectual approach of traditionalist jurists, and advocated a rational
and critical reading of the works of classical Muslims. They rejected, for instance, the restrictive
role assigned by traditionalist jurists to women, emphasizing the importance of women’s
education and social participation. Indeed, as early as the 1930, Muhammed Rashid Ridah not
only did advocate the right of women to education and social participation, but also their right to
political participation.29 Similarly, al-Kawakibi attributed cultural decline of Muslim society to
denial to women the right to education, and stressed the importance of their public involvement
for their ability to provide proper guidance and sound upbringing for children.30
While reformist scholars were, and continue even today to be, outnumbered by their
traditionalist counterparts, they have exerted a profound and far-reaching influence on
contemporary society. Their impact can be seen in the increasingly more open views adopted by
leading figures within the traditionalist schools. Several influential and widely respected jurists
within traditionalist circles are on record in supporting democracy, human rights, including the
right of women to compete equally with men for public office.31 The views they express today,
and teach in public, and in shari’a departments of traditional Islamic colleges, would have been
sufficient for them to be branded as heretics just a century ago. Leading scholars of the Azhar
University, such as Muhammad Abu Zahra, Mahmoud Shaltoot, Muhammad al-Ghazali, and
Yusuf al-Qardawi, have been emphasizing equality between men and women, and between
Muslims and non-Muslims.
The views of reformers continue to mature in the direction of recognizing human dignity
and reciprocity in society. Most recently, Fahmi Huwaydi, a leading journalist in the Arab
World and respected Muslim reformist, addressed the question of equality between Muslims and
non-Muslims in a book entitled Muwatinun La Dhimiyun (citizens not dhimis). Huwaydi rejected
the dhimmi classification of non-Muslims as a historically relevant concept, and demonstrated, by
referring to Islamic sources, that non-Muslims in a Muslim political order enjoy full citizenship
rights on par with Muslims.32 The views advanced by Huwaydi is supported by the views of the
9
founderand leader of the main Islamic opposition in Tunisia who stresses that non-Muslims
enjoy equal citizenship with Muslim majority.33 Al-Ghanoushi also advocates the right of women
to participate on equal footing with men in public life. “There is nothing in Islam,” he writes,
“that justifies the exclusion of half of the Muslim society from participating and acting in the
public sphere. In fact, to do this is to do injustice to Islam and its community in the first place,
and to women [afterward].”34 Similar arguments for gender equality can be seen in the writings
of leading Shi’i jurists including Murtada Mutahiri, Muhammad Khatami, and Muhammad Mahdi
Shamsuddin.35
Given the continuous expansion and maturation of Islamic reformist views, focusing on
the views of the traditionalists, or on “middle-ground positions” is bound to distort the reality of
cultural reform in the Muslim society, and obscure the direction and dynamism of social change.
To doubt the potential of Islamic reform ? despite the overwhelming evidence of gradual
change of views toward a more liberal and egalitarian position advocated by reformists ?
because of the shortcomings of current reality is tantamount to doubting the liberating ethos of
the declaration of independence at the time of its promulgation because the American society did
not include women and blacks in the notion of “the people”. It took almost two centuries, and a
lot of struggle on the part of countless individuals who strongly believed in human dignity, to
bring these ethos to bear on the reality of social practices.
Again, despite the breathtaking cultural changes that took place in the twentieth century
Muslim societies, we still find scholars who want to convince us that there is such a thing as a
never-changing “Islamic culture”. Thus Tibi is able to make sweeping generalizations on Islam
and Muslim cultures; he writes:
If Muslims are to embrace international human rights law standards full-heartedly, they
need to achieve cultural-religious reforms in Islam ? not as faith but as a cultural and
legal system. In fact, Islam is a distinct cultural system in which the collective, not the
individual, lies at the center of the respective world view. The concept of human rights,
as Mayer rightfully stresses, is “individualistic” in the sense “that it generally expresses
claims of a part against the whole.” The part pointed out by Mayer is the individual who
lives in a civil society and the whole is the state as an overall political structure. Islam
makes no such distinction. In Islamic doctrine, the individual is considered a limb of a
collectivety, which is the umma/community of believers. Furthermore, rights are
entitlements and are different from duties. In Islam, Muslims, as believers, have
duties/fara’id vis-à-vis the community/umma, but no individual rights in the sense of
entitlements.
We are told in one breath that (1) Muslims are in need for cultural-religious reform, (2) Islam is
not a set of values and beliefs that ? like other religions ? give rise to various cultural forms,
but a “distinct cultural system,” and (3) Muslims have only duties towards the community, but
“no individual rights in the sense of entitlements.”
Tibi is not the first to argue that the emphasis in Islam is on duty rather than rights.
Donnelly advances similar arguments when he contends that, “Muslims are regularly and
forcefully enjoined to treat their fellow men with respect and dignity, but the bases for these
injunctions are divine commands that establish only duties, not human rights.”36 Yet these
assertions only reflect the lack of awareness, and possibily access, to the hundreds of voluminous
works in Islamic law which elaborate various rights, and judicial procedures for protecting those
rights, in the historical Muslim society. Suffice it here to give one example from the work of the
classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (d. 450 A.H./1086 A..C.). Recognizing people’s right to form
their own views, and to disagree with the prevailing views and dominant social and political
beliefs, he stresses that “if a group of Muslims rebelled by disagreeing with the views of the
community, and forged their own ideology, they are to be left alone and should not be fought,

the rules of justice should be applied to them in accordance with their rights and
obligations.”37 Further, Muslims were able always resort to the numerous courts of law
established to enforce the rules of law in the areas of family, commercial, and criminal laws.
They were also able to appeal to a high court, the court of mazalim, whenever they were not
satisfied with ordinary courts rulings, or their rights were violated by governors or public
officials.38
Tibi’s statement that “Muslims … have duties … but not rights in the sense of
entitlement” is a true description of contemporary Muslim society, but not “Islamic culture”
throughout Muslim history. Contemporary Muslims do not enjoy rights not because these rights
are not on the books, but very often because they are ruled by authoritarian regimes and police
states that have very little respect to the idea of the rule of law. The “Islamic culture” in which
the individual is lost in the crowd of the collectivity is that of authoritarian Muslim regimes who
have entered into an unholy alliance with contemporary Islamic traditionalists against Muslim
reformers. Authoritarian Muslim rulers have found it more convenient to cooperate with
traditionalist jurists, whose agenda does not include such items as political participation, or
constitutional and legal reforms, in their fight against reform ideas and their advocates.
UNIVERSALISM AND THE IMPERATIVE
OF CULTURAL MEDIATION
I have argued so far against a static and ahistorical approach to understanding the Islamic
position on international human rights adopted by many human rights scholars critical of views
held by Islamic traditionalists. I have maintained that such an approach inevitably distorts
reality, since it fails to uncover the dynamism and direction of cultural reform currently
underway in Muslim society. My contention is not that Muslim cultures have already achieved
the desired political and legal reforms, or that they have already brought about effective
protection of individual rights and social justice. For from it. I rather contend that Islamic
reform has been a positive force in liberating Muslim consciousness from both the crushing and
oppressive ideologies of developmentalism, and the limiting practices of Islamic traditionalism.
I turn in this section to explore the relationship between moral universalism and cultural
relativism, and to underscore the need for, even the imperative of, cultural mediation of any
meaningful legal reform. The argument in this section paves the way for introducing, in the
subsequent section, a slightly modified approach to cross-cultural dialogue.
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 by the UN
General Assembly, and the subsequent empowerment of the UN Human Rights Commission to
monitor and ensure compliance of state members in 1976, the question of the universality of
international human rights has been hotly debated. Two main positions can be clearly
distinguished: absolute universalism and absolute relativism. The former holds that culture is
irrelevant to the moral validity of human rights, while the latter insists that culture is the only
source of moral validity.39 Both positions fail to capture the full scope of the intercourse
between culture and universal values, and both have been used to advance self-serving interests.
Absolute (or radical) cultural relativism cannot be theoretically maintained, given the fact
that one can hardly find today a society which still maintains a homogenous culture. Besides,
considering the dynamic nature of culture no community can claim that the cultural tradition it
espouses is either eternally static, or is not involved in a process of cultural exchange with
outside cultures. Absolute cultural relativism is often advanced by authoritarian regimes to shut
off external criticism of the excessive use of power to silencing internal opposition. Absolute
moral universalism, on the other hand, is oblivious to the fact that moral values and legal
systems are the outcome of the rationalization of a specific charismatic vision or worldview.40
Practically, radical universalism could be turned into an instrument in the hands of cultures, and could be used for imposing the morality of one culture on another, as Donnelly
explains:
The dangers of the moral imperialism implied by radical universalism hardly need be
emphasized. Radical universalism is subject to other moral objections as well. Moral
rules, including human rights, function within a moral community. Radical universalism
requires a rigid hierarchical ordering of the multiple moral communities to which
individuals and groups belong. In order to preserve complete universality for human
rights, the radical universalist must give absolute priority to the demands of the
cosmopolitan moral community over all other (“lower”) moral communities.41
The radicalism of the two positions discussed above can be avoided by recognizing that for legal
reform to succeed, it must coincide with cultural reform. That is, one must recognize that
culture is the only mediating milieu for restructuring individual and social consciousness so as to
make them receptive to, and supportive of, international human rights. Yet even when cultural
reform results in acknowledging the universal validity of human rights, a reasonable degree of
cultural relativism must be allowed so the universal principles are interpreted from within the
specific socio-political context of society, and are brought to bear on the particular
circumstances of the various communities.42 An absolute universalism which ignores the
essential role played by culture for the moral development of the individual suffers from
“normative blindness” and is detrimental for both the dominant cosmopolitan culture, and the
indigenous cultures it intends to reform. The devastating effects of the experimentations
undertaken in Australia, Canada, and the United States to assimilate the aborigines illustrate the
impossibility of achieving moral development apart from the cultural tradition to which an
individual belong. They also illustrate the arrogance of the developmentalist outlook which
equates moral superiority with economic and technological advancement.
The devastating consequences of the “normative blindness” of absolute universalism
advocated by numerous human rights scholars is not limited to non-Western traditions, but
extend to the tradition of modernity itself. That is, by attempting to globalize Western
modernism in the name of international human rights, the West runs the risk of preventing, or at
least delaying, the development of alternative cultural forms which could enrich the culture of
modernity itself, and help it overcome some of the acute problems it currently confronts,
including the problem of “normative blindness”. It seems, though, that for the latter problem to
be overcome, a major reform in the dominant Western schools of jurisprudence is needed. As
Richard Falk notes, neither in positivist nor in naturalist jurisprudence “does culture enter into
the delibrative process of interpreting the meaning, justifying the applicability, and working for
the implementation of human rights.”43
A cultural reform aiming at liberating the individual from traditionalist interpretations of
Islam is already underway, as noted earlier. Reformers are appealing to the values and ethos
embodied in the Islamic sources to restore the moral autonomy of the individual, and to develop
an egalitarian political culture. The reform is therefore Islamic in nature and intent, and cannot
be otherwise. All reform movements that have brought about profound cultural reform have
been religious. The essentially secularist and individualistic modern West owes its genesis, as
Weber reminded us in his Protestant Ethic, to the Religious Reformation that took place in the
Occident at the dawn of the modern West. The Orient should be allowed to undertake its own
reformation, which would inevitably result in the reorientation and rationalization of the
religious values and beliefs of the people of the orient, and must hence take the form of a
Confucian, Hindu, or Islamic Reformation.
Islam is a religion which has historically given rise to a variety of cultural forms. Like all
divine revelations, it emphasizes individual responsibility, and admonish its followers to adhere
to its moral code even if that would dismay the larger society to which they belong. While it
12
social cooperation, it by no means places the collectivity above the individual.
Historically, Islam has given rise to unmistakably individualistic forms of philosophical, literary,
and artistic expressions. It has in the past inspired individual creativity that can be seen in the
work of eminent figures, such as al-Farabi, Averros, Avesina, and Ibn Khadun, to cite just a few
names well known for their contribution to Western scholarship. What is described as collective
orientation of the “Islamic Culture”, is a relatively new phenomenon in Muslim society, resulting
from the rational and moral decline of Muslims in the last two centuries, and effected by the
ascendancy in the post-colonial era of authoritarian regimes, demanding total individual
conformity in the name of developmentalist ideologies.
Despite a hightened interest in the notion of cross-cultural dialogue, there are very few
Western scholars who are engaged in a real dialogue with the advocates of Islamic reform.
There are many reasons for this, including the legalistic orientation of the two dominant schools
of legal jurisprudence in the West, and the defensive and apologetic approach of Islamic
traditionalism. But a true and meaningful dialogue is a must if human rights scholars, who are
strategically based in the West, were to have positive influence on the growth and maturation of
human rights reform in Muslim societies. It might be worthwhile to quote in this regard the
insightful words made by Leonard Binder little over a decade ago:
It may nevertheless be questioned whether any sort of exchange between Western
scholarship and the current Islamic movement is actually taking place, since the
development specialists seem to be talking to one another while the leading exponents of
the Islamic revival have decided to break off the dialogue. In point of fact, the dialogue
has not yet been broken off, and most of the present work is devoted to an analysis and
critique of some of the more interesting texts in which this cultural conversation is still
being pursued. This is not a completely open and reciprocal form of discursive
interaction, if only because Western intellectuals read very little of what Muslim
intellectuals write. Still, insofar as these [Muslim] thinkers explore Western ideas and
confront them with the hegemonic forms of Muslim thought, they carry out the dialogue
in their own works. I believe that the further strengthening of Islamic liberalism and the
possibility for the emergence of liberal regimes in the Middle East is directly linked to
the invigoration and wider diffusion of this dialogue.44
The words of Binder are as true today as they were little over a decade ago when he uttered
them. Still, it might not be too late for the advocates of Western universalism to abandon their
radical universalist position, which has ironically strengthened the radical reletivist position taken
by Muslim traditionalists, and to embark on a meaningful dialogue with Muslim reformers.
However, for a meaningful cross-cultural dialogue to take place, a number of conditions must be
observed; the elaboration of these conditions is the main concern of the next section.
PRECONDITIONS OF A TRUE
CROSS-CULTURAL DIALOGUE
Proponents of absolute universalism premise their arguments on either of the following two
presuppositions: (1) that the notion of culture ? i.e. a normative system supported by a set of
values and beliefs commonly accepted by a group of people ? is irrelevant to the debate on the
meaning and desirability of human rights, or (2) that human rights are compatible with a set of
moral values commonly shared by all cultures. I argue in this section that the first premise is
erroneous, and contend that for the common values to be universally valid, a non-hegemonic
cross-cultural dialogue must take place among representatives of various moral communities.
Scholars who deny the relevance of culture to the human rights debate usually favor a
unilinear view of history that equates moral with technical superiority. According to this view,
human cultures form a continuum in which primitive cultures represent one extreme while
modern culture represents the other. Primitive cultures are seen to be lacking not only in
technology, but in morality as well. Primitive cultures are described as barbaric and savage, while
modern culture is seen as refined and civilized. History, from a unilinear viewpoint, is nothing
but the movement from the primitive to the modern which forms the end of history.45 The
logical conclusion of the conception of history as modernization is that modern culture is the
measure of all cultures. The problem with this conception, though, is that it fails to account for
important historical events. The unilinear conception of history fails, for instance, to explain
why the European culture was more vibrant and developed ? politically, philosophically, and
artistically ? during the Roman civilization than in medieval times. From the modernization
perspective, culture is not relevant to the debate on human rights because there is nothing for
modern culture to learn from other cultures. Modern culture should set the standards for both
moral and technical action, and them pass then on to less developed cultures.
This is in essence the conclusion of a leading advocate of radical universalism in a
chapter published as part of an edited book entitled Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A
Quest for Consensus. Taking exception to the idea of a cross-cultural consensus on human rights,
she writes:
In this chapter I have argued against the enterprise of surveying world cultures and
religions in order to establish consensus on human rights that would answer charges that
such are a Western Creation.
To look for an anthropologically based consensus on the content of human
rights is to miss the point. There may be aspects of agreement worth noting among
what many societies take to be fundamental to a life of dignity and what the modern
notion of human rights includes as its content. The concept of human rights is not
universal in origin, however; and it cannot be located in most societies.46
Granted that an elaborate set of rights, purporting to protect the individual against an excessive
or arbitrary use of power by the state, was first articulated by the modern West, one should not
dismiss cross-cultural consensus as irrelevant. For even if we were to assume that the West
could learn nothing from non-Western cultures, a cross-cultural dialogue would still be needed
to understand the implications of applying a set of extremely abstract rights in various sociopolitical
milieus. Such an understanding should help expand the margin of tolerance for cultural
differences, and the appreciation of the complexity of cultural reform and the need to allow this
process to run its natural course.47
Other proponents of absolute universalism concede that human rights is a cultural
concept, and acknowledge the need for a cross-cultural basis for the claim of universal validity.
One interesting proposal has been advanced by Bassam Tibi in the form of international
morality to be “shared by all civilizations.”48 Noting Huntington’s warning against an impending
“clash of civilizations”, Tibi underscores the vitality of international morality for binding the
various “civilizations” in a peaceful pact. He rightly points out that “human rights cannot be
established internationally on the basis of overall universalism but rather on such cross-cultural
foundations for a universal morality.”49 He further emphasizes the importance of “unbiased
cultural dialogue and inter-cultural communication,” freed from the limiting concerns of foreign
policy and national interests.50 It turns out, however, that the cross-cultural dialogue he
envisaged does not involve a true cross-cultural exchange, but rather a one-sided intellectual
exercise that aims at addressing the question of “what ought to be done to make Muslims speak
the language of human rights in their own tongue?”51
It is obvious that an absolute universalistic stance is incompatible with “unbiased cultural
dialogue,” even when the proponents of such a stance truly desire this dialogue. A coercive
discourse in which the proponents of one of the contending points of view feel justified by their
14
positioning to dictate on others their own morality cannot be called a cross-cultural
dialogue, but rather a hegemonic discourse. A true and meaningful dialogue requires that the
parties involved be truly interested in understanding the opposing views, and are involved in “a
completely open and reciprocal form of discursive interaction.”52 The transition from a
hegemonic discourse to a cross-cultural dialogue requires, therefore, more than the manipulation
of linguistic usage. The transition requires change in attitude and approach, from one that relies
on power relationship to one that depends on rational interaction, or, to use Habermasian
categories, a transition from a strategic speech act whose aim is to advance the interests of the
powerful actor, to communicative speech act, whose goal is to influence the actions of others by
appealing to their rational sense.53 Put more precisely, for the transition from a hegemonic
discourse, denoting a strategic interaction, to a true cross-cultural dialogue, signifying a
communicative interaction, to take place, three preconditions must be met: (1) the universalism
of human rights must be established objectively, (2) the moral autonomy of the various national
and cultural communities that form the world community must be recognized and respected,
and (3) the self-righteous claim by any cultural group of the superiority of its moral system must
be rejected.
Arguments for the universality of human rights invoke, more often than not, the
subjective rather than the objective dimension of universalism. Subjective universalism is
monological because it takes “the form of a hypothetical process of argumentation occurring in
the individual mind.”54 Subjective universalization process follows the pattern set by Kant in the
form of the Categorical Imperative: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law.”55 From a Kantian point of view, a rule can be
universal if it passes the test of the reciprocity principle, viz. if the person who adopts the rule as a
maxim for his/her action is willing to be treated by others according to the same rule. The
principle of universalization as formulated by Kant is a subjective principle that can have a
universal validity only in so far as others share the same moral subjectivity with the moral actor.
Put differently, the Kantian principle of universalization, which takes the form of a subjective
process of generalization, can work only in a homogenous culture in which people share
common intersubjectivity. However, as soon as one moves into a world characterized by
cultural pluralism, say a world which resembles the international society, a different principle of
universalization would be needed. Here, a new version of the Categorical Imperative, such as
the one formulated by Thomas McCarthy, would be more relevant:
Rather than ascribing as valid to all others any maxim that I can will to be a universal
law, I must submit my maxim to all others for purposes of discursively testing its claim
to universality. The emphasis shifts from what each can will without contradiction to be
a general law, to what all can will in agreement to be a universal norm.56
McCarthy’s reformulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, inspired by Habermas’s
Communicative Action, reflects an implicit realization of the increasing cultural fragmentation of
modern consciousness. If the stipulation of explicit agreement for the fulfillment of
communicative action is relevant to cultures that share common intersubjectivity, it is more
urgent in a cross-cultural dialogue. Needless to say that agreements and disagreements in the
context of rational dialogue requires rational justification, and not simply the assertion of
preference and choice.
A cross-cultural dialogue has two aims. First, it helps reduce apprehension, which may
result from excessive speculation and extrapolation from one culture to another, and clarify
cross-cultural misreading and misunderstanding. Secondly, it enriches internal debates in a
particular culture by communicating different experiences, and the critical insights of
outsiders. The value of a Tocqueville’s critical insight into democracy in America, or a
15
Schacht’s critical analysis of Islamic law cannot be overstated. However, for a true dialogue to
take place and to be maintained with a reasonable degree of objectivity, the interlocutors should
recognize the moral autonomy of other cultural groups. This means that the solidarity of
external groups with the substantive views of one of the internal groups locked in moral and
political struggle should not be allowed to take priority over the principle of justice.
HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURAL REFORM,
AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
For human rights principles to take hold in the social and political practices of a political
community, these principles must be rooted in the cultural outlook and moral commitments of
its members. In societies where human rights violations are rampant, such violations may
partially be attributed to the lack of cultural sensitivities and commitments, and partially to
authoritatian regimes which have little or no respect to human rights. In these societies
enforcement of human rights requires a vibrant cultural reform and vigorous political struggle.
It follows that human rights, cultural reform, and political participation are locked forever in a
three-sided dialectical relationship.57 Each of the constituting components of the above
relationship does influence, and is in turn influenced by, the others. This process has been
working slowly but surely in Western societies since the Protestant Reformation took place few
centuries ago. The democratization process should go hand in hand with cultural reform and
increased sensitivity to human rights.
As I argued earlier, a similar process has been going on in Muslim societies for little over
a century now. However, the reformation process in Muslim societies has been complicated by
both direct and indirect influences of the outside world. Intervention of Western powers in the
internal affairs of Muslim countries, whether in the form of colonialism and direct military
intervention, or in the form of unlimited support to authoritarian regimes, has disturbed the
historical process of cultural reform and political liberalization and democratization. During the
Cold War, military dictators received tremendous financial and military support allowing them to
become completely independent from the influence of internal politics and popular support.
And as long as these regimes cooperated to advance the national interests of their respective
patrons they could act with impurity against their people. The human rights of the people were
considered secondary to the interests of superpowers. They were invoked only insofar as they
could be used to advance the national interests of the power that be.
In the Muslim world, cultural reformation is facing stiff resistance from authoritarian
regimes, intent on suppressing the egalitarian and liberating ethos of reform movements. The
suppression of freedom of expression and association by authoritarian regimes in the Muslim
world is responsible, not only for the stifling of cultural debate essential for reform, but also for
the rise of Islamic radicalism. It is not uncommon for radicals to point to the selective
application of human rights ? popularized as double standards — to justify their rejection and
to foster public cynicism.
International human rights are articulated as a means for protecting individual dignity
against an arbitrary power, and to allow a distinct minority to exercise self-determination. Any
attempt by external powers to bring about legal change contrary to the moral values of a people
through the agency of an authoritarian regime in the name of human rights amounts to a
coercive act of moral imperialism, and would make mockery of the very notion of human rights.
Human Rights scholars who are concerned about cultural practices which are in contradiction of
human rights should engage indigenous cultures through an open dialogue to both effect change
and understand the source of limitations. It should also, and perhaps in the first place, focus on
16
exposing efforts by external powers to maintain authoritarian regimes so long as the latter are
willing to protect their “national interest”, even when the support extended to anti-democratic
regimes amounts to inflicting great pain and suffering on countless human beings crushed under
the abusive schemes of their rules.
NOTES
1 The works of Abdullahi A. An-Na’im represent the views of the proponents of cross-cultural dialogue, while
the writings of Rhoda Howard represent those of its opponents.
2 For an excellent discussion on strategic formation, see Edward Said, Orientalism, (N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1979).
3 One such example of an openly prejudicial argument against Islam’s capacity to recognize human rights can be
found in the following argument by the eminent Italian scholar Lurgi Bonanate, who suggests that a non-
Muslim is automatically considered an enemy in an Islamic state: “That the state may recognize other states as
different from itself is one thing: the protection of the wellbeing of a human being who, regardless of his flag, is
entitled to the same guarantees that the state offers its nationals is another. (The only exception to this idea of the state
in the contemporary world is the Islamic one, in which the foreigner is an enemy in so far as he is an infidel, not because he
was born under a different sky!)” See Lurgi Bonanate, Ethics and International Politics, trans. John Irving
(Cambridge, UK.: Polity press, 1995), p. 108. Emphasis added.
4 Ann Elizabeth Mayer, Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Practice, 2nd. Ed. (Westview Press, 1995).
5 Ibid. p. 70.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., P. 11.
9 Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Sarakhsi, Sharh Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir (Pakistan: Nasrullah mansur, 1405 A.H.), Vol. 4,
p 1530.
10 Ibid. p. 1531.
11 Bassam Tibi, “Islamic law/Shari’a, Human Rights, Universal Morality and International Relations”, Human Right
Quarterly 16 (1994) p. 284.
12 Ibid, p. 286.
13 I return to examine Tibi’s arguments more closely in subsequent section.
14 Reza Afshari “An Essay on Islamic Cultural Relativism in the Discourse of Human Rights”, Human Rights
Quarterly 16 (1994) pp. 235-276.
15 Ibid., p. 254.
16 Ibid., p. 253.
17 See John O. Voll, Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World, 2nd ed. (Syracus University Press, 1994), p. 339.
18 Ibid., p. 256.
19 Rhoda Howard “Dignity, Community, and Human Rights”, in Abdullah An-Na’im, ed., Human Rights in Cross-
Cultural Perspectives (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), p. 83.
20 Ibid., p. 94.
21 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (London: Routledge, 1991), p. 96.
22 Ibid.
23 Haward, “Dignity, Community, and Human Rights”, p. 94.
24 Afshari, “An essay on Islamic cultural Relativism in the Discourse of Human Rights”, p. 256.
25 Daniel Pipes, Oliver Roy, and Fuad Ajami are well-known representatives of this approach.
26 See Fuzlur Rahman, Roots of Islamic neo-Fundamentalism, Fred Halliday, The Politics of Islamic fundamentalism, John
Epositio, Islam and Politics, Lineard Binder, Islamic Liberalism.
27 Mayer, Islam and Human Rights, p. 177.
28 See, for instance, Muhammad Abduh, “Islam, Reason, and Civilization”, in John J. Donohue and John L.
Esposito, Islam in Transition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 24-8.
29 Muhammad Rashid Rida, Huquq al-Nisa’ fi al-Islam [women rights in Islam] (Beirut, Lebanon: Dal al-Hijra,
1987), pp. 12-4.
30 Abdul-Rahman al-Kawakibi, Um al-Qura in Al-a’mal al-Kamila, ed. Muhammad ‘Imarah (Cairo, Egypt: al-Hay’ah
al-Misriyah al-ammah, 1970), p. 261-4. For discussion of the views of early contemporary Muslim reformists,
see Louay M. Safi, The Challenge of Modernity (Leham; Maryland: University Press of America, 1994), pp. 111-
132.
17
31 See for example, Muhammad Al-Ghazali, Huquq al-Insan fi al-Islam.
32 Fahmi Huwaydi, Muwatunum La dhimiyun (Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1985).
33 Rashid al-Ghanoushi, al-Huriyyat al-Ammah fi al-Dawah al-Islamiyyah [Public Rights in the Islamic State (Beirut,
Labenon: Markaz Dirasat al-Wihdah al-Arabiyyah, 1993), p. 135.
34 Ibid., p. 132. The list of eminant Muslim scholars and leaders who have adopted reformist views includes, just
to cite few highly influencial people, Fahti Osman, Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Tariq al-bishri, Ridwan al-
Sayyed, Ishaq Farhan, Anwar Ibrahim, Khalisnur Majid, and Chandra Muzaffar.
35 See Zaki Milad, “al-Fikr al-Islami wa Qadayyah al-Mar’ah” al-Kalimah 21 (1998), pp. 9-24.
36 Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 51.
37 Al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, (Cairo, Egypt: Dar al-Fikr, 1983) p. 53.
38 Ibid., p. 71-2.
39 See Ann Belinda S. Prais, “Human Rights as Cultural Practice”, Human Rights Quarterly 18 (1996) 288; Also
Donnelly, Universal Human Rights, p. 109-12.
40 See Max Weber, Economy and Society (University of California press, 1978) , Vol. 1, pp. 1121-1156; also Alasdair
MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (London: Duckworth), 1990.
41 Donnelly, Universal Human Rights, p. 110.
42 See Ibid, pp. 117-8; also Abdullahi An-Na’im, “Toward a Cultural Approach to Defining International
Standards of Human Rights,” in A. An-Na’im (ed.), Human Rights in Cross Cultural Perspective (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), p. 25.
43 Richard Falk, “Cultural Foundation for the International protection of Human Rights,” in Abdullahi An-Na’im
(ed.), Human Rights in Cross Cultural perspectives (University of Pennsylvania, 1992), p. 44.
44 Leonard Binder, Islamic Liberalism (The University of Chicago Press, 1988) p. 9.
45 The unilinear conception of history derives its intellectual force from Hegel’s Philosophy of History.
46 Haward, “Dignity, Community, and Human Rights,” in Abdullahi An-Na’im (ed.), Human Rights in Cross-Cultural
Perspective, p. 99.
47 For an excellent discussion on the impact of social context on the implementation of human rights, see Daniel
A. Bell, “The East Asian Challenge to Human Rights: Reflection on an East West Dialogue, “Human Rights
Quarterly” 18 (1996) 641-667.
48 Bassam Tibi, “Islamic Law/Shari’a, … .”, p. 280.
49 Ibid., p. 280.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., p. 293.
52 Binder, Islamic Liberalism, p. 9.
53 See Jurgen Habermas, Moral Consciousnes and Communicative Action, trans. Chistian Lannardt and Shierry Weber
Nicholsen (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity press, 1990), P. 58.
54 In stipulating objective universalism as a preconditon of a true dialogue, I am drawing on Habermas’s argument
for Discourse Ethics. See Habermas, Moral Consciousness, p. 68.
55 Immanuel Kan, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 84.
56 Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas (Cambridge, mass., 1978), p.326.
57 Richard Falk, “Cultural Foundations for the International Protection of Human Rights”, p. 57-9.