"Human Rights in Islam"

....would that be an oxymoron?.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 9, 2008 3:34 PM

I think they also need to specifically state the case for slavery still being alive and well in islam.

Posted by: R_not at January 9, 2008 3:40 PM

Yet, under Shariah law, there is no equality between men and women and between Muslims and non-Muslims.

There’s the sticking point. Under Sharia’s version of ‘human rights’ we humans enjoy no rights but to obey some 7th century primitive codex, which does not include equal rights for all under the law, nor personal freedoms of choice, nor freedom of conscience and belief. These things are reserved for progressive humanity, not mentioned by Allah to the founder of the 7th century codex, the Quran, so not in Sharia either. OIC’s 'human rights' gives us no rights but to obey the 7th century codex, with all attendant problems of slavery, female subordination, loot and pillage, taqiyya and jizya, child and women slavery war booty, and a perpetual state of hostility for the rest of non-codex–obedient humanity. There is no hope for Islamic reforms with the OIC in the UN. They are stuck forever in their 7th century codex ‘submission’ mentality. Sharia law regression for the muslim world can never catch up to the progress of the rest of the world, neither in social rights nor in economic advancements. Anyway, jihad trumps it all in the end, along with ‘death for apostasy’ killing any freedom of choice. ‘Human rights’ and Sharia cannot be said in the same sentence, without being a complete mocquery of reason and justice. Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at January 9, 2008 4:17 PM

Surprising - considering who sent it. I've always felt that the people of any real decency of the 'progressive left' will have a wake-up call.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at January 9, 2008 4:42 PM

The 'Cairo Declaration of Human Rights' is an insult to humanity!

It is a huge scandal that this blatant attempt to promote sharia has not been torn to shreds by human rights activists around the world, in mass-demonstrations, ridiculed and exposed for the vile and pernicious crap that it is.

What's scary is that this manifest of sharia law is given equal weight on a scale equal with the 'International Declaration of Human Rights' which no Islamic nation signed up to. Then you have a whole army of bootlickers like Louise Arbour who would push such an insane act of submission through the UN.

We should all be horrified. But most of us never compared the 2 declarations side by side, (I did and I'm outraged!) Unfortunately there seems little or no interest to do that, as you can see even here on DW only a few posters feel bothered to comment.

This is big, bad news!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 9, 2008 4:53 PM

Not so, sheik yer'mami, many people are outraged, but we are absolutely helpless against the monolith that is the United Nations today. The OIC has a majority voting block in the General Assembly. It is a travesty to what the original aims were. Worse still in that it is the Western nations that are paying for it.

Posted by: chrisse at January 9, 2008 7:32 PM

The UDHR was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48-0, with 8 abstentions (Saudia Arabia (no surprise), the USSR, and the Soviet bloc). That would mean that among those voting in favor were Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. One of the principal drafters of the Declaration was Charles Malik of Lebanon (a Christian, however).

Things have certainly changed in the Middle East.

Posted by: Seamus at January 9, 2008 8:02 PM

I agree with Sheik yer mami. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights is an insult to humanity and must be put to rest permanently!

The Cairo Declaration is an Islamic response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

It affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source.

The Cairo Declaration places Islam and Shari'ah on a "puritanical pedestal."

Article 25 basically allows shari'ah to have the final say regarding human rights.

Islamic Shari'ah doesn't promote authentic human rights especially towards women and non-Muslims.

I have included some direct references to Islam and Shari'ah that are found in the Cairo declaration.

Cairo Declaration of Human Rights-
Article 10
Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism

Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

Article 25
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

Cairo Declaration:
http://religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm

Look at how the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights differs from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- especially on Article 19- which makes specific reference to the right to hold opinions without interference.

Interference could amount to religious intereference ( E.G. Islamic Shari'ah which amounts to a lack of freedom of expression and lack of freedom of speech).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Posted by: Johnathan at January 9, 2008 11:18 PM

Countries adopting or supporting the Cairo should be kicked out of the UN. By joing the UN, a country accepts the UN Charter, AND accepts to follow the UN declaration of human rights - the 1948 version.
By not doing that, and even inventing their own, every OIC country automatically forfeits the membership of the UN. Simple as that. WE don't even have to kick them out, they kick themselves out.

Posted by: PeterDK at January 10, 2008 4:40 AM

Dear sheik yer'mami ,
If my memory serves me correctly one muslim country did sign up for the Universal Declaration of Human rights, the irony of it is that it was Iran, if ever there was a sick joke that is it. What seems to have been missed by everybody that Universal mean pertaining to one. It is a bit like a super condom one size fits all. So if one size fits all what is the need for another declaration of Human rights. The answer is quiet simple. The Muslims want to impose there Blasphemy laws on the rest of the world. The way the U.N. is set up now they will most likely succeed. The U.N. Human rights commission or what ever they call it. I call it the Inhuman rights commission is made up of 47 nations or there abouts Fifteen of these nations are muslim, to get a simple majority they only need to persuade 9 of the other members to vote for them. Lots of the other nations are piss poor and some will abstain. The judicial use of bribes to just a few leaders of these countries and they win every time. When you think of it a few million out of the coffers of the Saudis is nothing but small change. A cheap bargain on your way to world domination. The U.N. Is nothing but a disgusting parody of what it was intended for and will end up like the league of Nations having observer status at any discussions after the next war. A war that is obviously coming to anybody who has a modicum of historical knowledge and insight.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at January 10, 2008 5:39 AM

Hugh, could you elaborate on this, please?

Sorry I couldn't find any links as to who signed up to the UDOHR and who didn't, but this thing has been bugging me for quite some time and we need to pay attention. The way things are going at the UN, the Arbours et al will vote the Cairo sharia crock into 'binding' resolutions, and when Islam is beyond critique because of blasphemy laws you know we have lost. And every day we are losing just a little bit more by the looks of it...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 10, 2008 6:07 AM

"Sorry I couldn't find any links as to who signed up to the UDOHR and who didn't, ..."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

....on the 50th anniversary of the UDOHR, the following Americans signed in aggrement with the UDOHR:

USA
President Bill Clinton/ Harry Belafonte, Civil Rights Activist, Entertainer/ Michael Stipe, Rock Band REM/ Judith Jamison, Artistic Director for the Alvin Ailey Dance Theater/ Mario Cuomo, former Governor of New York/ Bette Bao Lord, Author/ Alanis Morrisette, singer songwriter/ Gabriel Byrne, Actor/ Sheryl Crow, singer-songwriter/ Ray Liotta, Actor/ Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Price Laureate 1997/ Most Rev. Leonard Olivier, Auxilary Bishop of Washington/ Maria Papas, Cook County Board Commisioner, Chicago/ Governor Tony Knowles, Alaska/ Governor Tom Carper made December 10 proclamation, Delaware/ Charles Baridorn Wiwa, nephew of Ken Saro Wiwa/ John Anslem Miller, President of National Union of Ogoni Students/ Janai Orina, Human rights Defender, Kenya/ Bing Zhang, daughter of Xian Ling former prisoner of conscience/ Monsisignor William Kane, Maryland/ Rep. Ellen Story, Massachusetts State Representative/ Michael Dukakis, former Massachussets Governor and presidential candidate, now professor at UCLA/ Bruce Mast, Mayor of Albany CA/ Patrick Stewart, actor and human rights activist/ Mayor Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco/ Sean Penn, Director and Actor/ Apo Shu, Conductor of the Women's Philharmonic Orchestra/ Salima Ghezali, Newspaper Editor, Algeria/ Alicia Kozameh, Poet and former POC from Argentina/ photographer Phil Borges/ Actors Richard Gere, Peter Harton/ Muhammad Ali and Lonnie Ali (his wife)/ Harrison Ford (actor)/ Melissa Mathison (screenwriter "Kundun")/ Julia Roberts (actor)/ Matthew Modine (actor)/ Mike Wallace (news anchor/60 minutes)/ Harry Belafonte (for the second time!)/ Natalie Cole (singer)/ Patrick Stewart (actor)/ Kenneth Cole (designer)/ Kerry Kennedy Cuomo (daughter of Robert F. Kennedy)/ Harry Wu (Chinese human rights activist)/ Lodi Gyari (Special Envoy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama)/ Waris Dirie (model and UN Special Ambassador for campaign to end FGM)/ Wes Craven (producer/director/writer)/ members of Sweet Honey In The Rock

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 10, 2008 7:36 AM

Thanks for trying, exsgtbrown.

But I'm after the countries who signed up originally, not some individuals who came for a celebration...sorry.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 10, 2008 11:35 AM

Thanks for trying, exsgtbrown.

But I'm after the countries who signed up originally, not some individuals who came for a celebration...sorry.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 10, 2008 11:35 AM

Thanks for trying, exsgtbrown.

But I'm after the countries who signed up originally, not some individuals who came for a celebration...sorry.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 10, 2008 11:42 AM

Countries adopting or supporting the Cairo should be kicked out of the UN. By joing the UN, a country accepts the UN Charter, AND accepts to follow the UN declaration of human rights - the 1948 version.

That's simply not true. There is no requirement that members of the United Nations agree with any or all resolutions passed by the General Assembly (which is what the UDHR is, after all). General Assembly resolutions, by the way, are never any better than hortatory; none of them have any binding force.

The only requirements to be a member of the U.N. are (a) (for original members such as Egypt and Syria) that they have been signatories to the Declaration by United Nations of January 1, 1942, or have been a participant in the Conference on International Organization, held in San Francisco in 1945 (the body that drafted the U.N. Charter), and that they sign and ratify the U.N. Charter (drafted at the San Francisco Conferece), or (b) (for later admission) that they be "peace-loving states" that "accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." None of those obligations entail accepting the UDHR or any other G.A. resolution.

A member of the U.N. may be expelled for persistent violations of the Principles of the U.N., as stated in article 2 of the Charter. Those Principles have nothing to do with anything covered by the UDHR.

Posted by: Seamus at January 10, 2008 1:17 PM

By the way, the encyclical Pacem in terris of Pope John XXIII, while generally approving of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, said, "We are, of course, aware that some of the points in the declaration did not meet with unqualified approval in some quarters; and there was justification for this" (para. 144). Does anyone know what reservations about the Declaration his late Holiness was endorsing here? I've never been able to find anything on this subject. Even Mary Ann Glendon's "A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" appears to be silent on the subject, though one would especially expect Prof. Glendon (who is President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and a noted Catholic legal thinker) to be conversant with Catholic commentary on the Declaration.

Posted by: Seamus at January 10, 2008 1:31 PM

Dear sheik yer'mami ,
the whole thing is a bit of a mares nest, there were 51 countries who signed up to the United Nations 6 of which were mulsim, which would have meant that the Muslim vote would have been about 12% Now there are 192. The United Nations has nearly Quadrupled. Of which 57 are muslim, this is 29%. We must not forget that most of this growth is the result of the breakdown of the French British and in the 90's of the Russian empire. This has also been assisted by the automatic knee jerk reaction of the Americans towards colonialism. Unfortunately we must accept what is happening and it will get worse although at a slower rate Kosova and perhaps Kurdistan might be the next members, of this tower of babel. You must also remember that it is a declaration and not a treaty there is a big difference. The whole thing of cause will unravel in the next few years when Iran tries to destroy Israel, then all the bets are off.

Deep Regards

Holger Dansker

Posted by: Holger Dansker at January 10, 2008 1:39 PM

sheik yermami and others:

Those above who imply that Muslim countries originally voted in favor of the UDHR in 1948 are incorrect, at least as far as Habib Malik is concerned: Habib is the son of the great Christian Lebanese statesman Charles Malik who helped draft and push through the original document. Here's what Habib said in an interview:

"When voting time came, there was not one vote against it. Instead, the representative from Pakistan, Zafrullah Khan, convinced the Islamic delegates to abstain. South Africa abstained, because they just couldn't go with this and maintain the apartheid system. And the Soviets and their group abstained..."

Got that? The Islamic delegates ABSTAINED. (As did those other two paragons of human rights, the USSR and apartheid South Africa.)

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1098/ijdp/habib.htm

Posted by: cantor at January 10, 2008 5:27 PM

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a whole, was adopted by 48 votes, with 8 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam (Thailand), Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstaining: Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia.

The President of the General Assembly said that the adoption of that

"very important Declaration by a big majority without any direct opposition was a remarkable achievement...[that] the Declaration only marked a first step since it was not a convention by which States would be bound to carry out and give effect to the fundamental human rights; nor would it provide for enforcement; yet it was a step forward in a great evolutionary process. It was the first occasion on which the organized community of nations had made a declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms. That document was backed by the authority of the body of opinion of the United Nations as a whole and millions of people, men, women and children all over the world, would turn to it for help guidance and inspiration."

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 10, 2008 5:42 PM

cantor:

Please check out the list of votes reported above by exsgtbrown. You'll see there that Saudi Arabia was the *only* Moslem country not to vote in favor of the Declaration. (Voting yes were Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Turkey.

Posted by: Seamus at January 10, 2008 7:58 PM

Seamus and exsgtbrown,

The report from the UN cited by exsgtbrown includes Pakistan as one of the countries who voted in favor. According to Habib Malik in the interview I cited,

"the representative from Pakistan, Zafrullah Khan, convinced the Islamic delegates to abstain."

At best, this would mean that only the delegates of Pakistan abstained. Even if this excludes the other Muslim countries on the list cited by exsgtbrown, it is at odds with that list. Something isn't right with this discrepancy. Unless I see more proof otherwise, I implicitly trust Habib Malik. And if the UN site cited by exsgtbrown is wrong on one particular, that puts the remainder of its purported facts in doubt.

Posted by: cantor at January 11, 2008 7:05 PM

"I implicitly trust Habib Malik. "

Posted by: cantor

...trust whomever you choose..I prefer facts....Habib Malik has presented none...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 12, 2008 1:36 PM

exsgtbrown:

Could you provide a link to that roll call? I tried finding it on the UN website, but all I found was the text resolutions adopted during the Third Session of the General Assembly.

Posted by: Seamus at January 12, 2008 8:59 PM

Individuals, or groups of individuals, are the foundation of societies. Human constructed totalitarian narratives were built on opposite logic; the collective serve the fascists.
Foundations can be rebuilt. When individuals aspire for new systems, they transform their immediate spheres of influence. Individuals, or groups of individuals, will not wait for top down tyrannical regimes to effect necessary adjustments toward their liberation.

Posted by: SFOD at January 13, 2008 1:09 AM

I implicitly trust Habib Malik.

It would appear that Habib Malik's memory is seriously flawed. According to Mary Ann Glendon's "A World Made New: Elanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (p. 168, footnotes omitted):

"In the end, the controversial religious-freedom article caused only one defection. All the states with large Muslim populations except Saudi Arabia voted yes when the whole draft Declaration was presented for approval by the third committee. The main speaker on the issue in the General Assembly was Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, the foreign minister of Pakistan and head of its UN delegation. A member of the minority Ahmadi Muslim sect, Kahn told the delegates that the article on religious freedom would have the full support of Pakistan, then the UN member with the largest Muslim population. The issue, he said, 'involved the honor of Islam.' He cited a passage from the Koran for the proposition that faith could not have an obligatory character: 'Let him who chooses to believe, believe, and him who chooses to disbelieve, disbelieve.' Moreover,he pointed out, Islam was a prosyltizing religion that strove to persuade others to change their faith and to alter their way of living. It recognized the same right of conversion for other religions, though it had objections to Christian missionary work when that work assumed a political character. The freedom to change beliefs, he concluded, was consistent with the Islamic religion.

"Syria's Abdul Rahman Kayaly rose to defend the Declaration against those who complained of its imperfections. There had been many human rights declarations throughout history, he began. Those earlier declarations had not been perfect, nor had they been perfectly observed. Civilization had progressed slowly. As for the present Declaration, 'It was not the work of a few representatives in the Assembly or in the Economic and Social Council; it was the achievement of generations of human beings who had worked towards that end.' Now the task was to put its principles into effect--through education, national legislation, and forms of government."

Professor Glendon's footnotes cite to the records of Plenary Meetings of the General Assembly, 183rd Planery Meeting, December 10, 1958, pp. 925, 890, 922. What is Habib Malik's source?

Professor Glendon, like exsgtbrown and me, reports (on pages 169-70) that the final vote was 48 yes, 8 abstaining, and none opposed. (Honduras and Yemen were absent.) She also reports the same abstentions as exsgtbrown and me: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, USSR, Yugoslavia, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Seamus at January 15, 2008 5:36 PM

Professor Glendon's book continues to be full of interesting tidbits. Knowing how much some people who haunt this site are appalled by the suggestion that Arab refugees who fled their homes during the hostilities of 1948-49 (I use this circumlocution because people like Hugh get bent out of shape by the term "Palestinians") might have a right of return, I was fascinated to read how "[t]he Palestinian refugee crisis prompted discussions that led to two significant changes" in the draft Declaration. Professor Glendon describes one of those changes (p. 153):

"Fighting between Israeli and Arab forces had resumed in October, and some of Israel's neighbors had become concerned about the burden on their societies posed by the continuing influx of refugees. On the motion of Lebanon [which basically means the motion of Charles Malik], the 'right to return' to one's own country was added to Article 13, . . ."

Another one of the fathers of the Declaration was Carlos Romulo of the Philippines, who opposed the resolution for the partition of Palestine that eventually became Resolution 181. As he said to the General Assembly on November 26, 1947 (Glendon, p. 103):

"We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which, not being mandatory under specific provision of the Charter nor in accordance w2ith its fundamental principles, is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. . . . [I guess he didn't get Hugh's memo about how there was no "Palestinian people" until 1967.]

"In taking this position, my Government is not unmindful of the sufferings of the great Jewish people who we hold in sincere admiration. . . . During the first dispersal of the Jews from Hitlerite Germany, the Philippines was among the very few countries that opened their doors to Jewish refugees and extended to them a cordial welcome."

(Three days later, the Philippines voted for the partition resolution, after Romulo got a cable from the president of the Philippines saying that the country was switching its position on partition "'in the national interest,' which Romulo understood to mean that the United States was threatening to cut off aid to its former colony" (Glendon, pp. 104-05).)

Posted by: Seamus at January 15, 2008 8:33 PM