Neutral as a unicorn? Moral equivalence defense seeking ‘neutral’ ‘worldviews’ will not wash. Other “worldviews” (as you put it) adopt “The Golden Rule”...Islam does not now, never has and never will adopt “The Golden Rule” as it contradicts doctrine and is considered jahiliyya.
Hence the quiet application of the “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights”
https://www.politicalislam.com/cairo-human-rights/
within United Nations applies across the board in issues involving the 57 predominantly Islamic nations - essentially negating the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” which applies to all other nations.
Western logic is based on the “Law of Contradiction”. If two things contradict, then at least one of them is false.
Islamic logic is dualistic; two statements or ideas can contradict each other and both remain true. Since the Qu’ran is considered by muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, all contradicting verses are sacred and true. The later verse is ‘better’ but the earlier verse cannot be wrong, since Allah is perfect. Circumstances dictate which verse applies. Dualistic systms can only be measured by statistics. Hence my reference to Dr. Bill Warner’s excellent series on Statistical Islam.
Dualistic logic is unique to Islam providing significant advantage as it confounds all Western logic.
Odd reply. The problem with Islam is far deeper than the Golden Rule or any nonsense from the UN. As I said, every worldview is “political”. I didn’t say that they are all somehow morally equivalent. Claiming some worldview is “neutral”, e.g. secularism, as many claim, is a dodge. At some point people have to admit that “x is right” and “y is wrong”. Islam is evil.