Islam Versus Individual Rights

The USA that was founded on a unique concept among all nations that individual rights are superior to government of any kind. Historically, most nations put government and aristocratic power ahead of the individual rights of its citizens. Many world-wide governments today do the same thing. It is this repect for individual rights that made the USA the most prosperous and successful country in the world. 

Individual rights as interpreted in the framework of Ethical Individualism posits that every human being possesses infinite and equal intrinsic value, not derived from any group affiliation, belief system, or external hierarchy, but from their inherent existence as a unique individual. This is affirmed in the USA Declaration  of Independence that we are all created "equal." 

This individual rights philosophy rejects the notion of superior or inferior persons based on religion, gender, ethnicity, or any collective identity; instead, it affirms that all individuals are sovereign entities with inalienable rights, including the freedoms of religion, speech, and self-determination. No one can be judged or valued by their membership in a group—each person stands alone in their moral worth and agency.

From this USA vantage point, doctrinal elements within Islam that advocate for the establishment of theocracies over democracies and the domination of other faiths reveal a profound incompatibility with these core tenets of individual rights and autonomy. Such aspirations prioritize religious supremacy and collective conformity over individual autonomy, undermining freedom of religion, speech, and the equality of all humans.

This article explores these tensions, arguing that true human flourishing demands the protection of individual rights against any system that seeks to impose divine law as the ultimate authority. At the heart of the Ethical Individualism (USA) position on individual rights lies the inalienable right to freedom of religion, which allows each person to pursue their spiritual path—or none at all—without coercion or penalty.

This right is not a privilege granted by society or state but an extension of the infinite value of the individual, ensuring that beliefs remain a personal domain. However, interpretations of Islam that envision a global caliphate or theocratic governance, where Sharia law serves as the foundational legal system, inherently conflict with this freedom.

In a theocracy, religious doctrine becomes the state's enforcing mechanism, often mandating adherence to Islamic principles for all citizens, regardless of their individual convictions. Historical and contemporary examples, such as the governance models in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, illustrate how non-Muslims or dissenting Muslims face restrictions on worship, conversion, or public expression of alternative faiths.

Ethical Individualism views this as a violation: no religion, including Islam, has the authority to dominate the spiritual landscape, as doing so diminishes the infinite worth of individuals who hold differing beliefs. Freedom of religion, in this perspective, is absolute and cannot be subordinated to a collective religious ideal; to impose theocracy is to treat non-believers as lesser entities, contradicting the equality of all humans.

Equally incompatible is the theocratic impulse with freedom of speech, a cornerstone of Ethical Individualism that empowers individuals to express ideas, critique power structures, and engage in open discourse without fear of reprisal. Speech is the vehicle through which individuals assert their autonomy and challenge dogmas that might otherwise stifle personal growth.

Yet, doctrines within Islam that seek domination over other religions often include prohibitions against blasphemy or apostasy, which can extend to severe punishments under theocratic rule. For instance, questioning core tenets of the faith or advocating for secular alternatives might be deemed offensive to the divine order, leading to censorship or legal repercussions.

From an Ethical Individualist standpoint, this suppresses the individual's right to intellectual freedom, treating speech as a threat to religious hegemony rather than a fundamental human expression. No group—religious or otherwise—can claim superiority in value to justify silencing others; each person's voice carries equal weight, infinite in its potential to contribute to truth-seeking.

By prioritizing the sanctity of religious doctrine over open dialogue, such theocratic aspirations erode the marketplace of ideas essential for individual and societal progress, fostering conformity at the expense of personal liberty.

The equality of all human beings, irrespective of gender, further exposes the rift between theocratic Islamic ideals and Ethical Individualism. This philosophy insists that women and men share identical infinite value and rights, including the pursuit of dreams without artificial barriers imposed by tradition or law.

However, certain interpretations of Sharia in theocratic contexts often encode gender hierarchies, such as unequal inheritance rights, restrictions on women's mobility or testimony in court, or mandates for veiling that symbolize submission. These elements stem from a worldview where religious roles define worth, potentially elevating Muslim men as guardians of faith and diminishing women's autonomy.

Ethical Individualism rejects this outright: no human can be deemed superior or inferior based on faith or sex; to do so groups individuals into categories of judgment, violating the principle that people must be evaluated solely as unique beings. In a democracy grounded in individual rights, women can aspire to leadership, education, or personal fulfillment without religious oversight.

A theocracy, by contrast, risks enforcing divine mandates that treat gender as a divinely ordained inequality, clashing with the inalienable right of every woman to equality and self-determination. Moreover, the desire for domination over all other religions, as articulated in some Islamic eschatological visions or calls for jihad against non-believers, stands in stark opposition to Ethical Individualism's rejection of group-based superiority.

This philosophy posits that no collective—be it a religion, nation, or ideology—holds infinite value; only individuals do. Aspirations for a world under Islamic rule imply a hierarchy where Muslims are positioned as morally or spiritually elevated, justifying expansionist policies or conversion efforts that overlook the equal worth of adherents to other faiths or none.

In democratic societies, pluralism thrives because governance derives from the consent of individuals, not divine command, allowing diverse beliefs to coexist without one claiming dominion. Theocratic dominance, however, risks viewing non-Muslims as obstacles to a godly order, potentially leading to discrimination or forced assimilation.

Ethical Individualism counters this by affirming that every person's value is infinite and unranked; to pursue religious supremacy is to deny this equality, reducing individuals to representatives of inferior groups rather than sovereign entities.

In conclusion, from the lens of American founding values of equality, the push within Islamic doctrines for theocracies and religious domination fundamentally undermines the freedoms of religion and speech, as well as the equality of all humans, including women.

By elevating collective religious identity over individual autonomy, such systems impose hierarchies that contradict the infinite, equal value of every person. True ethical progress demands democracies that safeguard inalienable rights, where no group can judge or dominate another.

Only in such environments can individuals flourish without the shadow of imposed superiority, honoring the profound truth that humanity's worth resides not in faiths or collectives, but in each irreplaceable soul.