well since yassir arrafraud has a nobel prize too i'll give it as much credence as i give the UN security council then again islam is good with human rights if your a male and a follower otherwise you dont count do i really need a sarcasm tag three words pop into my mind every time i hear islam and human rights Facist Theocratic Elitism

Every course on Islam and Human Rights should begin with a close reading of Reza Afshari's book on the matter. There is not a single important item in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is not contradicted by Islam --beginning with the right of the free exercise of religion, and the right of individual conscience (to change one's religion for another, or for unbelief). Ebadi is not the object of great admiration among Iranians in exile, except among the "soft" apologists who cannot quite make the full break with Islam. See, for example, the biting comments on her at the website run by Iranian exiles, at www.faithfreedom.com. No doubt, Ebadi, who has chosen to take her stand on the treatment of women, cannot admit to herself what the real tenets of Islam are; she is illogical, and ignores the reality of Islam. What does she have to say about the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam? That, surely, is the key. Does she abjure the claims to world-dominance and the expansion of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-harb? What does she make of the validity of treaties between Infidel states and Muslim ones? Anything? Nothing? She is not exactly a phony, but she is limited, intellectually and otherwise, and though she will no doubt be feted in the West, there are plenty of Iranian exiles who have come to the conclusions of Ali Sina, and Ibn Warraq: "There are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate." Ebadi was never the brave independent thinker she has been offered up to the West as --in a sense, she is useful as presenting the "human" and "tolerant" face of Islam, and in this sense, she is even useful to the current regime in Iran,by deflecting a real challenge to the basis for its rule (Islam)--in the same way that Shahpour Bakhtiar, Mehdi Bazargan, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, and a host of others in the leftist Mossadegh line proved so naively useful to Khomeini and his reactionaries.

It would be nice to hear Ebadi at least admit that Islam has a serious problem -- even if she then goes on to say, a la Irshad Manji, that of course "it can be fixed." (It can't). It would also be nice to hear a hint, in her public pronouncements, that there is something to be said for pre-Islamic Persian civilization, and for Zoroastrianism, and for pluralism (because Persian nationalism is the only force, at this point, that can constraint, perhaps for a long time, the force of Islam). But Ebadi won't and can't. Like a number of other Islamic "feminists," who make much of their brave fight against the mistreatment of women but ignore all the other grievous problems with the tenets of Islam, and many of whom have found comfortable lives in that West even as they deplore it -- while continuing to serve as "soft" apologists for Islam -- and one of their most effective rhetorical tricks is to tell Infidel audiences about how, at one point, they were even tempted to convert to Christianity but pulled back, and remained within the fold of Islam. This has the intendede effect on non-Muslims, who then think -- wow, what a truth-teller, she admits to having had her own doubts about Islam, but in the end she stayed with it, didn't she (stayed to fight bravely on) and this becomes a kind of confirmation, to these innocents, both of the speaker's remarkable candor, and of the essential decency of Islam. For a good example of this, see how the Muslim feminist" Leila Ahmed -- so nicely ensconced at Harvard Divinity School, where she charmingly and soothingly offers a version of Islam that accords so well with all those in the Interfaith Racket -- frequently makes use of this device.

Ebadi is a phony, and many Iranian exiles who have become thoroughly disenchanted with Khomeini (and not a few with Islam), know this perfectly well. They saw through her at once.
But non-Muslims seem to have an infinite capacity to avoid the evidence of their senses; they have a long learning curve; they just do not understand how to distinguish the truth-tellers from those who, out of embarrassment, filial piety, intellectual or moral confusion, cannot quite see, or if they see, admit to, the deep and inherent contradictions between Islam and human rights.

Nor is the problem limited to the Ebadis, and Ahmeds, and other soft apologists. Within the universities, even those where the Espositos and the Saids are now properly despised and discarded, a new breed of apologists for Islam has arisen. These consist of Muslims, and non-Muslims, who talk a good game about "reform" and make sure that they attack Saudi Arabia, or tell us that "Shi'a Islam" or "Sufi Islam" are fine -- thus earning themselves certifiable credentials as "brave truth-tellers" about Islam -- quite useful for one's career, and getting tenure -- when in fact they are simply the latest version of apologists, practicing a soft taqiyya, a kinder, gentler kitman. These young thrusting young academics of the Khaled Abou El Fadl or Noah Feldman variety, self-presented as "experts on Islam" and taken as such by uncritical colleagues who, if the field were not Islam but, say, American Constitutional Law,or Torts, would have no difficulty in judging them appropriately, but who, knowing little or nothing of Islam, or even what the phrase "Islamic Law" may mean, are inclined to lazily accept what they take to be the outward and visible signs of truth-telling (attacking Wahhabi Islam, or suggesting that "Islam needs reform" goes a long way in winning points from the credulous). When Abou El Fadl can contrive to have someone in the Muslim world seem to attack him, or, as in the case of Feldman, one can point to one's participation in the task of "writing a new constitution for Iraq," why most colleagues will roll over at once. And so, within the universities and the law schools, where the Ibn Warraqs and Ali Sinas are not asked to teach, and the Bat Yeors scarcely read -- the nonsense continues, not infrequently supported by subventions from the American government. All of this simply incereases the number of tenure-protected apologists. Note to universities: really, the Administrations of these schools must realize that Islam, and related subjects, are often taught by agents or fellow-travellers, and you must, yourselves, study the matter, beginning perhaps with the scholarly literature easily available through the CD-Rom of the Index Islamicus. Do not think that reading this or that recent production by by Bernard Lewis discharges your responsibility to learn fully about Jihad and dhimmitude. It doesn't. Right understanding of Islam, and right policies, depend upon intellectual preparation vigilance, not so much about the openly hostile, but about the apologists of the Shirin Ebadi variety.

Again, in order to see exactly how preposterous Ebadi is, one must turn to the articles and books of such piercing students -- Reza Afshari, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and others who, born like Ebadi into Islam, have proved willing to analyze it as a belief-system, and to lay bare, not disguise, its faults and the dangers it presents, not least to its own adherents. But no Nobel will be awared to Ibn Warraq. No one will admit that Bat Ye'or's scholarship, far from being unduly "polemical," has in fact been remarkably meticulous, and a guide to the current predicament.

Instead of Ebadi, it is the ex-Muslims, those who have made a clean break with what, through no fault of their own, they were born into, who are the most valuable witnesses for non-Muslims. During the Cold War, it was the ex-Communists who testified so forcefully about the real nature and intentions of Communism. People who would not have listened to Dean Acheson or Dulles, did listen to Alberto Moravia, Arthur Koestler, R. H. Crossman, and others, when they collectively published The God That Failed. It was ex-Communists who saw through all the propaganda, the peace festivals in Helsinki, the and suchlike. They had been there, done that. They knew about the Trest, the Comintern, Willi Munzenberg, and all the rest. Similarly, it is those who, like Ibn Warraq, have actually attended a madrasa, who have endured the khutbas, who have even had siblings who became terrorists -- one thinks of Ms. Labidi -- who can help us to understand how Islam makes its appeal, or disguises itself, for presentation to non-Muslims. Western governments, one suspects, will never hold a similar conference of ex-Muslims who can publicly testify as to wha the faith really teaches, or why they left Islam. Committed to pluralism, and believing Islam is merely a religion and not, in the main, a geopolitical cult, those governments remain inhibited, indeed terrified of offending the adherents of that belief-system that, we are endlessly told, is one of "tolerance" and "peace." Perhaps after the next bombs go off, the moment will be seized, and the real education of the public will no longer be limited to websites and whispers.

Does the phrase tautology mean anything to Ebadi?

Does the word tautology mean anything to Ebadi?

Hugh

I don't agree that Ebadi is a phony - she genuinely believes what she says and has been imprisoned/ faced death threats for it. I think she just hasn't thought things through to their logical conclusion.

But she does genuinely care about women's rights, and so is a good person to have on side in a country where women have had so few rights.

To be genuinely egalitarian, Islam would have to be reformed out of all recognition, or simply relegated to the private sphere, away from the law and politics, as has happened with Christianity.

Well, if Islam is a great equalizer, let us recall George Orwell's famous quote to the effect that some pigs are more equal than other pigs (Animal Farm), even among Muslims. If you are not a Muslim, you are not even in the equation. The consistent Islamists are quick to point out, correctly so, that they love death and Islam is a philosophy of death. Death is a great equalizer, true. For the living, and those of us who value life, reality, reason, we must fight to preserve the concept of Individual Rights as stated in our Declaration of Independence. Now, inalienable rights of man are the authentic great equalizer; Man's Rights, per the Declaration, require only that other man or men or governments be stopped from physically inflicting force on individuals. Otherwise, actions of men are up to their choices.

Do not be fooled by the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The last half dozen or so of those "rights" undercut the entire rest of the document and entrench the initiation of force as suitable among people to take from some to give to others. Those are fatal flaws. Forcing some to provide for others is abhorent to the concept of inalienable rights.

Not only is Islam a death-worshipping cult, it makes clear that human value comes solely from the capability of Muslims to serve this mythical Allah (in practical terms, the state). As for the rest of humanity, it is slavery or death. Nowhere in Islam does life have a value.

Because Islam has no recognition of individual rights, it must face the reality that it must reform or perish. Ebadi is blowing smoke. The most revealing thing about her is that she is the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. So is Yassar Arafat and for that matter Jimmy Carter.

Ilhad brings up a very good point, that Muslims serve the state. I have often contemplated the similarities between Islam and Communism. Both are brutal regimes that tolerate no opposition; both have no qualms about enslaving or murdering the opposition; both have made millions and millions of people miserable and both say one thing and do another. (Was Saddam Hussein a "good" Muslim?)

In fact, it is this last point that makes life in our world in 2004 so tedious. The constant barrage of lies told about Islam, about the U.S. presidential election, about whether carbs are good or bad for us, is enough to make a rational, hardworking human being say, please, just let the mountains fall on me and put me out of my misery. But as a Christian, I can't do that. I am not allowed to give up; I am not allowed to quit. And neither are any of the rest of us. So we shoulder on, praying for the next Solzenitzyn or St. Pius X to lead us against an ever increasing, darkly clouded night sky. (The battle in the 2nd Lord of the Rings comes to mind.)

I can do all things in Him Who strengthens me.

Islam clashes severely with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here is an article which explains how:
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/apostates/abulk/articles/Islams_violation_of_HR.htm