By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini
Nigerian Islamic scholar Sheikh Ahmed Gumi has challenged the consistency of international human rights criticism, amplifying a debate initiated by a U.S. senator about selective outrage in global politics.
The cleric took to Facebook to respond to remarks from U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who recently questioned whether Washington applies its principles uniformly.
Van Hollen noted the U.S. frequently censures rivals like China and Russia but is less vocal about allies, citing India’s religious freedoms, Turkey’s political rights, and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Gumi highlighted what he called “selective outrage,” suggesting some criticisms are matters of convenience, not principle. “People don’t marvel at the hypocrisy, but those who rely on their ‘friendship’,” he wrote.
The senator argued that this inconsistency erodes America’s credibility, allowing rivals like China to challenge its moral authority, especially in the Global South.
He referenced declining global perceptions of the U.S. and warned that without consistent standards, American values risk being seen as merely “a political cudgel.”
Gumi’s intervention underscores a growing view that geopolitical alliances, not universal principles, often shape global human rights debates.