Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The war on Iraq was a huge ethical and moral issue for
American officials, as they have to justify it in front of domestic as
well as international community. Sometimes they attempted to rely
on alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), some-
times they tried to link Saddam Hussein with terrorist groups, and
sometimes they presented him as a tyrant and dictator who should be
punished and removed. These justifications could not convince the
world that a war is necessary against Iraq.
The Issue of Palestine is a chronic headache for both Arabs
and Americans. The U.S. policy to support Israel without any restric-
tions has escalated the situation. Israel has persistently violated inter-
national law. Recent events of Gaza are best evidence where U.N.
headquarters were bombed and hundreds of children and women
have been killed by airstrikes and shelling. This critical situation
needs a review of U.S. foreign policy and its moral standing.
3
Id. at p. 8.
in abstract that weather the proposed law is good for their country or
not. If they create a law just to benefit or harm a specific person then
that law might be tainted with illegality. The same situation is true
for international law and relations for which Rawls is calling abstract
rules without considering the effects on a single country. Weather
this is achievable in international setting is a debatable question.
However, we must be clear on norms and principles which are the
core of international relations, ethics and morality. The rule
established by Rawls is one of them.
The question of enforcement of moral rules is the most important
and interesting one. Weather a country can enforce moral issues in
the world on its own or only an international body is a proper way to
enforce such rules.4 Interestingly, Amstutz claims that to abide by
moral values is a duty of an individual and morality is “self-
enforcing”.5
Still there is a heated debate weather morality has any rule in
international affairs. Some argue that morality is irrelevant as
international relations are based on necessity. Other group totally
denies the existence of morality in international relations as this is
only “individual private behavior”. Some while defending Morality
in international relations argue that this is a special kind of morality,
which has its own traits, and it should not be confused with
individual morality.6 Some have argued that there are strong
foundations of morality in international relations and for this purpose
4
This raises an issue of whether the U.S. had a moral authority to punish Saddam
Hussein for his crimes against his people; this will be discussed later when
discussing Iraq war and justifications presented by the U.S. government. Even
before this issue, the important question is whether moral obligations are
enforceable by power.
5
See supra Amstutz at p. 2.
they mention three main sources of international political morality,
namely, foundationalists who base it on universal unchanging
principles, constructivists who base it on general conceptions of
justice and finally consensualists who base it on existing agreements
between states.7
Amstutz tried to alienate the rights of self-determination from
morality by saying that “The collective right of self-determination
depends largely upon political power – on the ability to make and
sustain a claim to self rule in the face of political actors who oppose
such a development”. This is not a moral issue. It depends less on
morality than the ability to defend the claim.8 If we start thinking
according to this approach then every right needs a strong back to
enforce, I feel it is a moral duty of every nation not to occupy a land
if the inhabitants are unhappy with the government for legitimate
reasons. At least we should admit moral right of people to claim self-
determination. Of course, there are other legal requirements
necessary to accomplish the goal of freedom but by recognizing a
moral right for oppressed people; we can provide them a hope to
succeed in their struggle.
B. World Politics and Morality
6
Marshall Cohen, Moral Skepticism and International Relations, (International
Ethics, Charles R. Beitz & Marshall Cohen & Thomas Scanlon & A. John
Simmons eds., Princeton University Press) p. 5.
7
See supra Amstutz at p. 12.
8
See supra Amstutz at p. 22.
9
Stanley Hoffmann, Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of
Ethical International Politics, (Syracuse University Press) p. 11
exercise morality and ethics in international relations.10 The author
supposes here that the need for survival compels states not to abide
by any moral duty. The reason is there is no “single moral code”
which requires us to follow some specific and certain rules.11
However, the quick question one can ask: is it must to have a code to
claim morality and abide by its rules or we can rely on general
principles followed by nations for centuries. I think general
principles exist on which nations agree. There is no difficulty in
identifying those principles and follow them. However, the problem
of survival is more serious one. The question is whether always
states derogate from moral principles in quest for survival or only
desire of hegemony leads a nation to defy international law and
moral principles altogether. I am inclined to the later conclusion as
usually powerful states derogate from established rules of game in
search of more and more power.
Week and smaller states know beforehand that if they will defy the
international law then there is international community, which will
punish them. This fear of punishment restrains them from any
violations of law and moral principles. Still this rule is not absolute.
If we examine the situation of Israel, which is a small country but
persistently has been classified as violator of international norms by
its grave defiance of UN resolutions and promises made to
international community. The reality is it has strong support from the
U.S. and other powerful countries of the world, which encourages it
to keep violating established international norms. If, supposedly, this
support decreases or there is a potential of punishment from
10
Id. at p. 21.
11
Id. at p. 20
international community then it will hurry up to resolve lingering
issues with Palestinians and subsequently with its neighbors.
Again, Hoffmann comes and claims that practically there are no
alternatives to “Machiavellian statecraft”, but in theory, there exists
some alternatives like to obey natural law stemming from Christian
faith and the principles of eternal peace derived from Kant.12 He
suggests that the possible situation in foreign policy is we try to
decrease the gap between ought and is, he claims if we try to obtain
full compliance with “ought” that is not realistic.13 This stance is
close to realists who argue that the international affairs should only
be judged by national interest and power.14
View of an American Conservative: George Kennan
In his article, George Kennan describes three basic concerns of
national society, namely, military security, the integrity of its
political life, and the well-being of its people. I think he has
enumerated the most important elements of a state for which every
state strives. He further mentions that these are necessities and
therefore they cannot be classified as good or bad. The element
ignored by him is the means of achieving those goals. It is true that
every nation needs these basic elements for its survival. We can trace
the same necessities in the life of an individual too. Every nation
devises means to accomplish these goals for its individuals. Always
there are clear-cut rules, which should be followed otherwise
anarchy and chaos will be the fate of that nation. The same thing is
12
Id. at p. 24.
13
Id. at p. 28.
14
Marshall Cohen, Moral Skepticism and International Relations, (International
Ethics, Charles R. Beitz & Marshall Cohen & Thomas Scanlon & A. John
Simmons eds., Princeton University Press) p. 4.
true for the world community. Every state needs prosperity, security
and well-being of its people. Are there not any rules to abide by
while following the accomplishment of these goals? Of course, there
are rules and if we do not follow them, then chaos will be waiting for
the world community, same as for a small society. Therefore, my
main criticism of his approach is that he ignores the means of
achieving those goals or in his words “unavoidable necessities”.
Again, while discussing whether there should be any moral rules
to comply with when dealing with international community, he calls
for only America’s own standards and to ignore the standards
recognized by international community.15 This is fatal for America
and international community where there are about 200 nations, this
behavior cannot do any good except increasing the strife in the world
community, which will ultimately lead to isolate America and will
harm its interests. He calls for only American interests and ignore all
other considerations, this stance greatly conflicts with the ambitions
of the world community. As it will come later, that Grotius says no
nation can live on its own and even the most powerful ones need
cooperation of others in order to live in this world.
C. Moralist Approach of Hugo Grotius
Hugo Grotius says that human beings tend to live in harmony and
under roof of law. He traces this concept back to Aristotle “who said
that shameful deeds ought not to be committed even for the sake of
one’s country.” He argues that even the most powerful countries
15
In the part one of “the National Security Strategy of the United States of
America 2002”, the government says that it will base its national security on a
“distinctly American Internationalism” this might be construed imposing on others
domestic ideas rather consulting with allies to determine international goals.
cannot live without help from others, this requires a framework of
law and when a country departs from law, at that time things become
uncertain.16
He is concerned about the observation of law by states in the
international arena. If one state departs from law that creates a
dilemma for others, especially if that state is one of the powerful
nations in the world community. We can compare the same situation
with a small village where a limited number of people reside. If the
leaders of that village who are powerful start violating the rules then
the poor and week or ordinary people will not feel obliged to follow
and obey the rules. This will create a problem for the whole village
and will help spreading lawlessness there. If that behavior is repeated
persistently then the situation will become severe. If we apply the
same concept or formula on a large level, on the community of
nations, the result will be the same. We have seen and experienced
this lawlessness during the first half of the 20th century when despite
attempts to create international norms and constant appeals to abide
by it went futile because many nations took into account only their
self-interest and ignored others in this world. This ended with the
death of millions of people and the destruction of many parts of the
world. Does this teach us a lesson? I will try to answer this question
in the conclusion.
D. Justifications Made for Invasion of Iraq and Their Moral
Standing
16
Hugo Grotius, Prolegomena to the Law of War and Peace, (Francis W. Kelsey,
trans., the Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.) pp. 28-29.
The conflict of Iraq presented various challenges, as the
resentment of international community was high. This invasion
created a strife among European nations as the U.S. government
demanded them to support its action against Iraq. Most of the Europe
was reluctant as it was against their interests and they were not
convinced by the arguments of the United States. The justifications
presented by the American government included: preemptive self-
defense17, weapons of mass destruction,18 tyrannical and oppressive
rule, and support of terrorists.
In his address to the UN General Assembly in September 200219,
the president spent his whole speech talking about Iraq. He accused
17
Preemptive self-defense: it was argued that the invasion of Iraq is exerting
preemptive self-defense; the analysis shows that, it is allowed only when there is
imminent threat. Was this the case at that time? It appears that Iraq never
threatened to attack the U.S. or UK rather it did not possess that capacity. Some
authors argue that the UN charter regulating self-defense has become old and it
does not reflect current position of International law. The question then pops up
what is international law. International Law consists of customary international
law, treaties, and general rules of law observed by international community. Does
this preemptive strike fit in any of these categories? Clearly no, as it is claimed
only by the U.S., UK and Israel; the whole community of nations rejected to
accept this rule. Consequently, the allegation of existence of new rule is
suspicious. See generally: Anthony Clark Arend, International Law and the
Preemptive Use of Military Force, (Reshaping Rogue States, Alexander T. J.
Lennon & Camille Eiss, The MIT Press, 2003)
18
Here I would like to point out the report of International Crisis Group, which
tried to prove that Iraq possessed WMDs, which were threat to international peace
and security; I believe this was misleading as no WMDs were ever discovered.
This raises suspicions about reports of International Crisis Group that it serves
special interests of countries and does not present truth as it is. See International
Crisis Group, Iraq Policy Briefing: Is there an Alternative to War, 24 Feb 2003.
The report can be found here:
(http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=1683) (last visited January
30, 2009)
19
The address can be found here:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/ (last visited January 30,
2009)
Saddam Hussein of developing WMDs, killing his own people,
supporting terrorism, and many other accusations.
Now the question arises how the U.S. could morally act against
such grave problems. There were two choices, (1) to obtain
authorization from the Security Council,20 (2) to act unilaterally with
support from some of its allies; the most important ones were the UK
and Australia. The U.S. chose the second option as the first option
was not available for dissent of France, Germany, China, and Russia.
Most of the world called not to invade Iraq.
Now I will look at the benefits and costs of the invasion to
determine its legality. The costs of Invasion were many and I would
mention the most important ones. First, to get in conflict with friends
and allies like France and Germany, second, world resentment
against America, before this war the whole world showed empathy
with the U.S., third, huge military expanses, fourth, massive killings
of civilians in this war and suffering of people, fifth, emergence of
Al-Qaeda in Iraq, sixth, destabilization of the region. Benefits: A
tyrant was removed, a threat to U.S. and Israeli interests was
reduced, experiment of implanting democracy.21 Now we need to
20
The Security Council was not ready to authorize the use of force and it was
thought that the UN has become old and failed. Some think that the real problem is
imbalance of power, after the collapse of Soviet Union we have only one super
power, which creates obstacles for the UN to work effectively. See Michael J.
Glennon, Why the Security Council Failed,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-
security-council-failed.html , (last visited Sunday, January 18, 2009)
21
See generally: John Lewis Gaddis, Grand strategy in the Second Term,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101faessay84101/john-lewis-gaddis/grand-
strategy-in-the-second-term.html , (last visited Sunday January 18, 2009);
Implanting democracy cannot stop terrorism. So one of the justifications to invade
is not based on right premise from the beginning. See generally: F. Gregory Gause
III, Can Democracy Stop Terrorism,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-
democracy-stop-terrorism.html , (last visited Sunday, January 18, 2009). This
compare these benefits with the costs. I believe the costs are far
larger than benefits, as huge number of civilians has been killed and
still they are suffering as the infrastructure is weak and people are
living under constant fear of bomb explosions.
On moral level, it was alleged that Iraq possessed weapons of
mass destruction, but after the invasion, they were never found.
There are reports that the American and International community
was deliberately deceived. The question is where the discovery of
these secrets leads us to in the international arena and regarding our
moral obligations. Who is responsible for hundreds of thousands
Iraqi lives and thousands American lives besides thousands
wounded. I believe if we let this go without determining
responsibility of all this mess created by some top-level officials it
will create a bad example for coming generations. This war created
hatred against America among people all around the world and it is
not possible to restore respect and pride without bringing the all
responsible for violations of international law and breach of their
duty to act prudently.
When comparing costs and benefits, it appears that even if we see
from the realists’ perspective this invasion went against the US in-
terests. Therefore, this invasion becomes illegal and illegitimate un-
der both approaches. One might argue that initially it was considered
that this invasion would serve the U.S. interests but later on if the
strategy failed, it cannot be argued that it was illegal, under Realists
approach.
leads us to the result that if the foundation is flawed then we cannot erect a
building upon it.
Conclusion:
Adultery
Question:
Answer:
Question:
I started a women’s hairstyling business. In the beginning I relied
upon my daughters for this job, but I soon found it indispensable for
me to do work myself. I have worked in this profession for
approximately four years with the help of my wife, even though I
have a BBA degree and she has a BA.
Answer:
Allah Most High commands His Muslim servants – male and female
– to lower their gaze. He commands Muslim women to cover
themselves save their face and hands – except from their husbands
and unmarriageable kin. Allah Almighty says
[Prophet], tell believing men to lower their glances and guard their
private parts: that is purer for them. God is well aware of everything
they do. And tell believing women that they should lower their
glances, guard their private parts, and not display their charms
beyond what is [acceptable] to reveal; they should let their head
scarves fall to cover their necklines and not reveal their charms
except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their
sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their
sisters’ sons, their womenfolk, their slaves, such men as attend them
who have no sexual desire, or children who are not yet aware of
women’s nakedness; they should not stamp their feet so as to draw
attention to any hidden charms. Believers, all of you, turn to God so
that you may prosper. [24:30-31]
‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said that Asma, the
daughter of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them), entered
upon the Messenger of Allah wearing transparent clothes. He
turned his face away from her and said: “O Asma! If a woman
reaches menarche nothing of her body should be seen except this and
this,” and he pointed to his face and hands [Abu Dawud, in al-
Sunan].
Answer:
Footnotes:
He should not regard the blessings coming down on his heart from
the unseen world as the results of his own actions or strive rather he
should regard them as the mercy and graces of Allah, he has to be far
from seeking fame or name, as whoever intends to get leadership or
fame among the people remains divested from the sincerity without
which a person could not become a true traveller towards Allah, as
the leadership causes a lot of problems and barriers which stop him
from high degrees of spiritual perfection.
He has to lower down his head and gaze humbly, so that he can
avoid seeing unpleasing thing, and can save himself from
contaminating his sights with sins, for a turn to the unlawful scenery
injures the heart.
The noble Prophet (May peace of Allah and His blessing be upon
him) has said, “ the vision is one of the Satan’s poisonous arrows and
the protection from it’s harm can be achieved by avoiding seeing
towards prohibited things, whoever avoids seeing unlawful scene
due to fear of Allah, is crowned with the honor of true belief”.
The grand Prophet (May peace of Allah and His blessings be upon
him) has said, “The wisest among you is that who corrects
himself/herself every moment”.
One has to purify his exterior and interior from avarice, worldly
desires, arrogance and all kinds of bad manners, so that one would
be able to achieve the position of “be decorated with the attributes of
Allah”.
O dear! If you aspire for the success of this world and hereafter or if
you wish to get the wealth of both worlds then you should adhere
yourself with all kinds of good manners which have been mentioned
previously, no one knows how the bounty of Allah and His blessings
manifest? Nor how the doors of eternal bliss are opened for a
person?
How wonderful is the actions of some ascetics who have entered this
field but are lazy and careless of prayers which are the best kind of
worship rather the key of the doors of blessings and how they dare to
devalue and abase this magnificent worship. Some of unlucky
mystics make themselves occupied with innovations leaving behind
them obligatory prayers (I seek refuge of Allah from them) these are
merely devilish tricks which have deceived them and deviated them
from the right path and stopped them from the eternal bliss, as
prayers represent one of important pillar of Islamic foundation,
whoever remains absent from performing it or neglects the prayers in
fact he has damaged his own religion.
It has been said, “Every thing has its epidemic, but the epidemic of a
person in his faith is to neglect the obligatory prayers”.
The noble tradition explains, “When a denouncer of prayers lifts the
loaf of bread to his mouth, the loaf curses him and says, “O enemy
of Allah! How do you eat the sustenance gifted by Allah by
denouncing your duty towards Him!”
It is narrated that, “ When the lucky people will see the miserable in
hellfire, they will ask them in wonder that you were Muslims in the
world then what has brought you to the hellfire? They will reply
back because we did not perform our prayers and deprived of this
auspicious worship in worldly life”.
Allah (Glorified be He) says about them, “What led you into
Hellfire? They will say, “We were not of those who prayed”. (43:74)
His holiness Abu Hafs Bukhari (May Allah’s mercy upon him) was
once asked, “If a person who does not perform prayers, whether he
remains Muslim or not? He answered:”I have searched it in all books
even in the glorious Quran to find out whether a person remains
Muslim or not without performing prayers but I never found
anywhere such”
Once a person saw the devil (Iblees) and asked what kind of action
should I do to become like you are? The devil answered, “Humiliate
the prayer (he meant to denounce the prayers), and to swear of
Allah”, the person asked again, “By Allah! I promise that I always
will be careful of my prayers and will never neglect my any prayer I
have promised with Allah (Exalted be He) that I never will swear of
Allah till my rest life”. The devil said, “If I had known that by this
trick you will snatch the extract of my experiences then I would have
never informed you let’s go what has happened has gone”