Australian Islamist Monitor

Islam Under Scrutiny

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Islam as Victor of Western Value Relativism

E-mail Print PDF

(A Critical Discourse on Pure Tolerance by Michael Mannheimer Germany, March 2009 / English Translation by Maria Sander - originally posted on Politically Incorrect)

The clash of civilizations, the collision between cultures, forecast by Samuel P. Huntington, has long since become an obvious fact in modern-day Europe, finding its clearest expression in the confrontation of Islam with the remnants of European Christianity. This collision not only is echoed in form of terrorist attacks but also in form of a bitter fight of ideals between two systems of values that could hardly be more opposed to each other, namely the archaic-totalitarian value system of Islam and the one represented by post modern European Enlightenment.

In the wake of this quarrel, the world of Islam has already achieved considerable partial success thanks to something we might call value indifference coupled with blind tolerance exhibited by European political elites which has already lead to a process of disintegration of both Europe’s ethic-religious foundations and sphere of rights. By the end, Islam may well emerge as victorious should Europe fail to rethink its occidental Christian roots.

Value Universalism of Human Rights

For a long time it seemed that in the world at large questions and discussions concerning guidelines as to right and wrong conduct had principally been answered and thus concluded. Starting out with the Magna Charta, established in 1215, followed by the Bill of Rights in 1689 and later by the American and French Constitutions in 1788 and 1791, respectively, the codifying of modern concepts of values regarding right and wrong finally lead to the Universal Human Rights Declaration proclaimed by the United Nations as well as by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act. The concepts of values expressed in those above-mentioned codes were considered universal and of unlimited validity for every human being, regardless of time, location and culture.

The equality of all people before the law, regardless of faith, ethnic origin, age, colour or gender, the freedom of assembly, thought and speech as well as the inviolable dignity of the individual guaranteed by constitutional law were the corner stones of a universal and undividable system of values agreed to as part of the United Nations’ Charta on 26 June 1945 with a voting result of 48:0, however, eight nations abstained at the time: the Eastern Bloc, the USSR, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. I shall elaborate on this at a later stage.

The most important intellectual basis for these universal standards of human rights is based on the contemplations of German philosopher Immanuel Kant as to the question of whether an ethical foundation valid for all human beings and for all times exists, and if so, how must it be formulated? Kant’s famous formulation, known as the “Categorical Imperative”, finally made its way into man’s history of legal and ethic understanding. In principle and until this day, Kant’s ethic formula shapes the UN’s foundation of a legal standard for conduct:

‘Act only in such a manner so that the maxim of your will could at the same time serve as a principle for universal legislation.’

Basically, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a linguistic elaboration of the proverb ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’

Hence, neither a thief would agree to theft becoming universal right, nor would a murderer suggest that murder become legally accepted since the murderer would not want himself to be killed and the thief could not possibly want to be a victim of theft.

Critics of the Declaration of Human Rights argue that it would not altogether differ from the concepts put forward by totalitarianisms – both governmental as well as religious – and would, therefore, be nothing more but a relative or arbitrarily defined system of values as far as its universal demand is concerned. However, these critics ignore a small detail which distinguishes the Universal Declaration fundamentally from those brought forth by totalitarian systems of values. It is the principle of reciprocity as part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative which necessitates a comparison in the sense of compatibility of a specific standard of conduct with all those affected by it. Thus, this principle helps to avoid standards of conduct proposed by single individuals or by a radical minority to become the foundation for legislative if they are not simultaneously accepted or wanted by the general public. In contrast to totalitarian systems demanding that each person “think and act as I want or else you are enemy”, the categorical imperative asks: “How can you and I find a common ground for our thoughts and conduct without harming ourselves and each other on basis which is wanted by both of us?”

Totalitarian systems force people to accept their system of values regardless of whether they agree with them or not. In contrast, value systems based on the categorical imperative in search for a definition as to right and wrong conduct confront each individual with the question as to how he or she wants to be treated (principle of reciprocity) before a standard of conduct becomes a universal principle of rights (legislation). The implication here is of a two-fold nature: to act towards any other person in such a manner that the other is not harmed [as a result of this action], and on the other hand to act in a manner that reflects the way in which oneself wishes to be treated. According to this formula, someone who is determined to force one’s own dogma upon another must automatically raise the question of whether it would be desirable if the situation were reversed. On the basis of reason, this can only be answered with ‘no’. At the same time it highlights the fact that any dogma or ideology ordering its members to force the system of values in question upon others is – viewed in the light of Kant – in the wrong.

The plausibility of the categorical imperative – both logical and in terms of content – was accepted by a majority of the then-global community in the middle of the 20 Century as basis for universal and indivisible ethics.

Value Relativism as Political and Religious Reaction

It is exactly this very principle of universality and indivisibility of values that became valid for the first time in history on a world-wide basis in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights formulated by the UN, and which advocates of so-called value relativism fight in the West.

It is important to note that this clientele originates from mostly Left-inspired campuses, the very forces that once upon a time took up the cause of indisposable rights and in the name of which no war against the old, feudalistic and absolutistic systems was shunned. Moreover, they represent the same forces that in 1949 objected to the vote of the universal validity of the UN-Charta. Without exception, the states that finally abstained were totalitarian dictatorships such as the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

From the point of view of value relativists, absolute values could not possibly exist but only those values that could be defined as relative to a particular way of life within a given society. No culture, so it was said, had a right to impress its values upon another claiming universal validity. No matter how sensible this argument might sound at first, it turns out to be a malicious one after closer examination. This problematic nature becomes clear by looking at the following – intentionally constructed – example. Let us suppose a culture as part of a global alliance were obliged – for religious reasons – to perform human sacrifice as part of its fundamentalist religious obligations. This case would immediately pose an insolvable problem to advocates of value relativism.

According to their philosophy, they would have to grant this culture freedom of religious practise, but this would at the same time make a case for allegations of supporting barbarism. However, if value relativists demanded a prohibition of human sacrifice, they would not only fundamentally violate their own principle but had to admit the incredibility of their position.

Due to the above-mentioned, discussions such as these are rare among value relativists since their battle is actually less of a philosophical nature than of a political kind. The battle is aimed at the Western system as such which is likened to capitalism and colonialism. In wake of the student revolution at the end of the 1960’s, the expression ‘Eurocentrism’ was coined by Western intellectuals, most of whom were associated with the Left. What was to be expressed was nothing more than a new Western ‘colonialism of values’ after the West had lost its actual colonies. This time – according to the accusation – in form of utilizing cultural ethics in the attempt to re-colonise the world with its system of values intrinsically made up of the old capitalist hegemony.

Behind all this hid, as usual, the insatiable Western capital, forced to win new markets in the Third World as a result of market saturation in the West. To achieve this, the rest of the world would first have to be won over to embrace the idea of a global market with international custom – and trade barriers removed in favour of Western – and specifically American – capital. The demand of the West – and, therefore, of capitalism – to establish democracy as well as universal standards within the constitution of any given Third World country was generally not viewed by left-wing critics as an ‘act of charity’ but rather as a malicious means by which capitalism were to gain permanent control over governments and markets in the Third World.

In the context of this general criticism, everything deriving from the West was questioned and made subject to relativism. Democracy and human rights had their place, if at all, merely as compatible models among others. It was hardly of interest to advocates of value relativism as to whether or not these other models harnessed totalitarian, anti-democratic or misogynist elements. Discussions were held at a purely formal level, contents were hardly questioned. In the case of e.g. Iran, there was no examination as to whether criteria such as tolerance, equality of all people, including equality of men and women, freedom of religion were guaranteed at all. In the opinion of value relativists, this kind of questioning was simply not deemed justified since discussing these points were seen as interference with matters concerning another religion, and it is exactly this kind of interference which is not desirable according to value relativism. To put it simply: value relativists invited people to come to Europe by the masses but refused to check their religious and philosophical backpack for hazardous contents because their immigration agenda was of quite another nature. Joschka Fischer [Minister of Foreign Affairs 1998-2005: ‘I am discovering more and more that I’ve remained a Marxist’ (Fischer 1998)] discloses the political intentions behind the politics of mass immigration. The book with the ‘appropriate’ title: ‘The Risk called Germany’ (English title given by translator to the best of her knowledge) 1994 was summarized by the ‘Welt’ as follows:

“Germany must be curbed from without, and from within made heterogeneous through influx, i.e. quasi diluted.” (Die Welt, February 2005)

In other words: the ultra Green politician had as little trust in the democratic spirit of his own people that he saw the necessity of ‘prescribing’ it a demographic i.e. homeopathic dilution in form of mass immigration in order to sideline it.

This is an unprecedented process in European history alongside the fact that this kind of politics was not rejected but rather rewarded by German voters when the Red-Green Coalition won the election in 1998 under Gerhard Schröder (‘Yes, I am a Marxist!’). Jürgen Trittin, former Minister of the Environment appointed by the Green Party (first time in the history of the FRG), and – like Schröder and Fischer – representative of the student movement of 1968 and follower of the Frankfurter Schule, disclosed in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (2 Jan 2005):

“I have never sung the national anthem, even not now that I am Minister.” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, January 2 2005, p. 6)

All these statements are typical of value relativists who have over the course of time taken positions of high esteem and prestige in the field of politics, jurisdiction and the social sphere, [and worse still], have let their anti-German words follow deeds with fatal consequences for Germany and Europe.

Read the full Essay HERE (PDF).


AIM Listed by NLA


Australian Islamist Monitor's web publications were selected for preservation by the National Library of Australia. Access to our materials stored in the NLA Archive is facilitated in two ways: via the Library’s online catalogue; and via subject and title lists maintained on the PANDORA home page.
Click HERE for direct access to the archive

Islam Kills

History - Articles

Lest We Forget the Battle of Tours

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Violent Jihad

Australians celebrate and revere Anzac Day on April 25th each year in remembrance of our brave soldiers who fought in two great world wars to secure our freedom. Every Australian identifies with the slogan “lest we forget” and in services held around the country people reflect on the battles and men who died to secure our freedom. Yet across the world in France, there is one remarkable battle which helped form the Europe we know today and allowed the development of civilization based on Judeo Christian principles. This one famous battle has become known as the battle of Tours and effectively stopped the Muslim advance into Europe. After the death of Mohammed in 632AD, Muslim armies exploded out of the Arabian peninsula to conquer much of the Middle East, expanding across north Africa. From there they crossed into Spain in 711AD and eventually controlled much of al-Andalus by 715AD. It was the victory at Tours by Charles Martel that stemmed the tide and eventually the Muslim marauders were expelled from Spain in 1492 when the last outpost at Granada fell to King Ferdinand of Spain. 

Read more

Shivaji’s Coronation Laudatory Landmark

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Infidels' Resistance

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was born, lived, fought and won battles against religious and social oppression in the 17th century Bharat or India. He was a shining star in the Indian firmament and is renowned as a champion of the downtrodden and depressed masses. He was and continues to be an icon for the classes and masses alike and is seen as a rallying point for peasants oppressed by foreign rulers, Pathans and Moghuls alike. Sexually exploited women found in Shivaji Raje a protector, a benefactor and flocked to his Hindavi Swaraj to find solace and feel liberated under his saffron flag. 

Read more

Ransomer of Captives from the Muslims

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Tolerance Myths

Perhaps some readers might be interested to know that January 28 is considered a feast day among Catholics – actually 2 feast days are celebrated on the same day – one is of ST Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval theologian and philosopher who adapted Aristotle to the western Judeo-Christian worldview. . It is also the feast day of a lesser known person – St Peter Nolasco, the great ransomer of captives from the Muslims.

Read more

Islamic Pirates

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Violent Jihad

Barbary Corsair
Somalian Islamic Pirates & Lessons from History
The dramatic rescue of the American cargo-ship captain Richard Phillips from the hands of Somalian Islamic pirates by the U.S. Navy—killing three pirates, holding him hostage at gun-point, through precision-targeting—warrants a review of the U.S. struggle with piracy and hostage-taking in North Africa, which ended two centuries ago.

Raiding trade-caravans and hostage-taking for extracting ransom in Islam was started by Prophet Muhammad. Having become powerful and secure after his relocation to Medina from Mecca in 622, Muhammad initiated Jihad or holy war in the form of raids of trade-caravans for earning livelihood for his community. In the first successful raid of a Meccan caravan at Nakhla in December 623, his brigands killed one of the attendants, took two of them captive, and acquired the caravan as “sacred” booty. The captives were ransomed to generate further revenue. Muhammad, later on, expanded this mode of Jihad to raiding non-Muslim communities around Arabia—for capturing their homes, properties and livestock, capturing their women and children as slaves often for ransoming and selling, and imposing extortional taxes—which sometimes involved mass-slaughter of the attacked victims.

Read more

The Battle of Broken Hill

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

Battle of Broken Hill Logo
The First Islamic Terrorist Attack on Australian Soil
On January 1, 1915 two Broken Hill men, both former camel drivers, armed themselves with rifles, an homemade flag bearing Islamic insignia and a large supply of ammunition and launched a surprise attack on the Picnic Train about 3 kilometres outside Broken Hill.

The train carried about 1200 Broken Hill residents to Silverton where a picnic to celebrate the new year was to take place.

The two Muslim men, Gool Mohamed originally a Pashtun tribesman from Afghanistan and Mullah Abdullah from what is known today as Pakistan, decided to wage jihad against Australian infidels after Australia and the Ottoman Empire officially joined the opposite sides in the WWI.

Read more

Jihad Galore

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Tolerance Myths

Jihad Galore and the Toledo Whore

Battle of Higueruela

Alhambra - GazelleHow often in conversation with a Muslim, do they quote Spain as the crowning achievement of Islam, where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in harmony for about 800 years?

And when you mention the killings and massacres, you are told that the Spanish Inquisition was much worse.
This is a misconception, since the Inquisition in Spain was responsible for only between 4,000 and 5,000 lives. [1]

Yet in 1066AD, in a single day, muslims murdered over 4,000 Jews because Vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela had risen to a position greater than them, and of course, this upset the Muslim sensitivities. [2]

Read more

Arabs Hated The Quran

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Stolen Heritage

How the Arabs Hated The Quran
Old Quran

Wh y are you a Muslim?
Musli ms in general love to hear the above question because it has a simple and readymade answer in their minds besides it gives them the opp or t u nity to propagate their religion and talk proudly about Islam.


Read more

Lepanto Anniversary

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Imperialism

Decisive Victory for the West

At this time of year, it is timely to remember one of the greatest victories of the west against the Islamic world. On the 7th October in 1571, Don Juan and the Holy League, led by Admiral Doria, defeated the larger Ottoman fleet in the Battle of Lepanto, saving Europe from the Turks and militant Islam. The Holy League was a coalition of different armies - of the Republic of Venice, the Papacy (under Pope Pius V), Spain (including Naples, Sicily and Sardinia), the Republic of Genoa, the Duchy of Savoy, the Knights Hospitaller and some others.

Read more

Muslim Jerusalem

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Stolen Heritage

Jerusalem - Coat of ArmsWhy do Muslims insist that Jerusalem is their Holy City?
When Mohamed and his faithful followers moved from Mecca to Medina, they found themselves among three Jewish tribes/clans (BANU-L-NADIR, BANU KAINUKA and BANU KURAIZA)  which settled there some time after their expulsion from their homeland and also living there were  two Arab, pagan tribes.

Mohammed, who at this stage needed more followers, decided to win those tribes over and convert them to his newly invented religion.

Islam was yet not as fully developed as we know it today, and Mohammed was still having his sessions with Allah (the Medina period revelations).

Read more

Killing of Banu Quraiza

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Imperialism

Did Prophet Muhammad order Killing Surrendered Jews of Banu Quraiza and Khaybar?  A historical Analysis

In the post 9/11 era of this modern-world, Islamists around the globe are busy with ‘damage control utopia’ in order to correct the image of religion Islam. We all know that the nucleus of Islam are: Quran, Hadiths (Sunnah) supported by Islamic histories and biographies recorded by various famous Islamic scholars and historians.

What Mecca?

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Early History

A great tragedy of the Islamic control of our universities and political correctness plus the fear of extreme violence if anyone dares question the roots and claims of Islam is ...that nobody dares question the roots and claims of Islam!!!  I want to stimulate interest and offer this summary of information on Mecca from (LINK) which discusses some problems with Muslim claims in a comparison of evidence supporting Islam/Christianity. 

Read more

Yahweh or Hubal

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

FlagThere is a very strongly entrenched view among majority of Westerners today that the three main monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam share one common God and therefore despite the obvious differences, the core foundation of these three religions is the same. 

Read more