Islam and Human Rights

It is sometimes argued that the non-therapeutic, non-consensual alteration of children’s genitals should be discussed in two separate ethical discourses: one for girls (in which such alterations should be termed ‘female genital mutilation’ or FGM), and one for boys (in which such alterations should be termed ‘male circumcision’). In this article, I call into question the moral and empirical basis for such a distinction, and argue that all children—whether female, male, or intersex—should be free from having parts of their genitals removed unless there is a pressing medical indication.

Europe's Transforming Identity. Part 1 of the book Islam and Tolerance in Wider Europe (ed. Pamela Kilpadi) including the articles:
* 'What Values for Europe?' by Michael Emerson
* 'The Role of Islam in Europe: Multiple Crises?' by Amel Boubekeur and Samir Amghar
* 'The Southern Gate to Fortress Europe' by Rutvica Andrijasevic

Following the death of 17-year-old Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teen who committed suicide after forced “conversion therapy,” President Barack Obama called for a nationwide ban on psychotherapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. The administration argued that because conversion therapy causes substantial psychological harm to minors, it is neither medically nor ethically appropriate. We fully agree with the President and believe that this is a step in the right direction. Of course, in addition to being unsafe as well as ethically unsound, current conversion therapy approaches aren’t actually effective at doing what they claim to do – changing sexual orientation. But we also worry that this may be a short-term legislative solution to what is really a conceptual problem. The question we ought to be asking is “what will happen if and when scientists do end up developing safe and effective technologies that can alter sexual orientation?”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is uniquely well placed to advance human rights in the Muslim world, but has repeatedly failed to fulfill that potential. Under the reformist leadership of Ekmelledin Ihsanoğlu, can the organization’s rights agenda move beyond traditional obstacles, namely members’ focus on state sovereignty and the debate over the role of sharia? Could the recently established Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights (IPCHR) form the basis of a robust international human rights regime for the Muslim world?

In a new paper published by the Brookings Doha Center (BDC), former visiting fellow Turan Kayaoğlu discusses how the OIC can become a more effective proponent of human rights. The paper, A Rights Agenda for the Muslim World? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Evolving Human Rights Framework, describes the changing approach and tenor of the OIC’s rights policy.

Based on extensive interviews with senior OIC officials, the paper takes a close look at the organization’s various human rights instruments and notes a shift in its approach. Recent mechanisms – most importantly the IPHRC – have dropped a former emphasis on the centrality of sharia. The OIC’s traditional understanding of state sovereignty, however, has remained intact and led to important shortcomings in the new body. This paper demonstrates how the IPHRC can nevertheless grow into an effective promoter of human rights, and offers recommendations on how the international human rights community can assist in that process.

Apart from joining a joyful costumes and salsa party, in the last days of the Bonn 2015 carnival I visited ›Atticus‹, the antiquarian bookshop in Reuter Street. I was going through rare books of all sorts when, just next to the odd pile of vinyl albums topped by one by Boney M, I saw a copy of the ›Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies‹ by Bartolomé de las Casas. This is modernity's first ›human rights report‹, as Enrique Dussel describes it. I could not believe I was holding in my hands the famous 17th century Dutch edition in Latin illustrated with engravings by Theodor de Bry. I was contemplating the images that show how the European conquistadors tortured and maimed to death the indigenous of Abya Yala (a.k.a. the Americas), when some pieces of paper fell to the floor. I picked them up. It was a manuscript. It had no title and no author. I confess I put it in my bag and went home – I am still not sure whether or not the CCTV system recorded the incident, and I have not received a visit from the police yet. As soon as I arrived at my place in Heussallee I read it and, to be honest, I found it a bit lacking. However, as the contents are relevant to the theme of this collective book, I decided to make a transcription. For the benefit of the reader I have added some images of the artwork mentioned in it, and I have attempted a translation into English from the Spanish original. The text is composed of a series of fragments arranged in some kind of order and it is divided in two parts. The first one explores concepts associated with questions of modernity, sentimental education and human rights, as well as some intuitions on the liaisons between art and emotions. The second part deals with sympathetic ways of approaching the work of Bill Viola, Sebastiao Salgado and Fernando Botero. I took the liberty to add a number of titles and footnotes. The first page is missing. The one marked as the second begins like this …

В настоящее время много говорится и пишется насчет взаимоотношения политики и религии (в особенности Ислама), принципах светскости государства, правах и свободах, имеющих отношение к религии (в частности, совершение богослужений, ношение женского платка и др.).
Cуществуют различные модели светскости, среди которых агрессивная» (воинствующая) светскость считается устаревшей моделью, так как не отвечает современным нормам прав и свобод человека.
«Пассивная» светскость, которую можно назвать современной демократической светскостью выражается в разделении политики и религии, но никак не является чем-то антирелигиозным или отчуждающим религию или ограничивающим права верующих, а наоборот является моделью «принимающей и охраняющей религию», как в личной, так и в публичной жизни, так как право на свободу вероисповедания является одним из «неотчуждаемых» прав человека, подобно праву на жизнь и свободу

The paper concludes that hurriyah (liberty), musawah (equality) and ukhuwwah (fraternity) are maqasid of Sharia and thus are Islamic values.  This empowers Muslims to engage with the integration debates as suggested by Modood on the basis of a rigorous theological foundation.

The conference presentation may be viewed online here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFsKszlEbhA&t=4s

Also here (c. 15:00-30:00 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugF8WsMYgCs

Tariq Modood (2011) maps “Four Modes of Integration” (Assimilation, Individualist-Integration, Cosmopolitanism, Multiculturalism) according to “core, European democractic values” of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity that assume “a backdrop of liberal democratic rights and values.”

This paper presents some theological and jurisprudential arguments, aiming to help Muslim discourse about integration:
1. During the Prophet’s mission, a treaty was concluded with the Jews and Christians of Medina that upheld a plural religious society, united against the attacks of the Meccan polytheists.

2. During early Islam, levying jizyah in return for military protection (dhimmah) and exemption from military service became a widespread practice.  Jizyah is mentioned only once in the Qur’an (9:29).  Even in early Islam, dhimmah was extended to non-Abrahamic religious communities, e.g. Zoroastrians and Hindus.

3. In traditional jurisprudence, jizyah and dhimmah became axiomatic, along with the associated concepts of Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam), Dar al-Kufr (Land of Disbelief) and Dar al-Harb (Land of War).  There later developed the Maqasid theory of Islamic law that emphasizes universal values and objectives over specific texts and rulings.

4. There was a fundamental dichotomy in the basis of human rights jurisprudence: traditionalist schools favoured a communalist approach, based on a person’s Islam or dhimmah; more rationalist schools, e.g. Hanafis, favoured a universalist approach, based on a person’s basic humanity (adamiyyah).  The Ottomans used adamiyyah, along with considerations of maqasid, to abandon their Millet system of multiple, parallel religious law for different faith communities in favour of a system of equal Ottoman citizenship.  The Ottomans enacted radical reforms to bring about civic equality, irrespective of race or religion. They abolished jizyah and dhimmah in 1856.

5. Indian Muslims shared a homeland with Hindus, Buddhists, Parsis (Zoroastrians), Sikhs and Christians for centuries, and the Mughals ruled over large areas of India where the population was majority non-Muslim.  Over the last century of British rule (19th-20th century), a strong nationalist movement for independence emerged.  Scholars and thinkers grappled with nations, homelands and faiths, making notable contributions to the debates around loyalty to God, religion and homeland, including possible conflicts of loyalty, especially in the context of nationalist independence from colonial rule.  These debates resonate with today’s integration debates.

6. Leading, contemporary jurists, thinkers and theologians of Islam agree that the mediaeval notions of jizyah and dhimmah are outdated, and that modern notions of citizenship (muwatanah) are appropriate expressions of Islamic law and ethics today.  This conclusion is based on maqasid, universalist jurisprudence and adapting to practical situations.

7. Modern notions of citizenship, irrespective of religion, were also embraced by leading Muslim political leaders from the 20th century, including Ataturk and Jinnah.  The constitutions of many Muslim-majority countries affirm equal rights for citizens, irrespective of religion, although implementation of equal rights is often deficient.

Hate speech issues have become one of interesting topics disscussed by academics of different disciplines since two decades ago. The studies employ various perspectives such as linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, politics, law and even media and communication, making the theme an interdisciplinary study. One of prominent and comprehensive studies on hate speech in US from 1920s to the end of twenty century using social and political history perspective is one written by Samuel Walker (1994), a professor in University of Nebraska, Omaha, AS. Walker focused the study on social context and groups interrelation, prejudice and discrimination as political issues, and attempts to control hate speech through legal institutions. Started from terminology analysis like " race hate " , " group libel " , or " racist speech " , Walker then proposed a definition of hate speech and its related expressions such as race, ethnic, religious groups, minority, age, marital status, physical capacity, sexual preference and sex

Since late 2017, Iranians have taken to the streets to protest the clerical regime’s domestic repression, foreign adventurism, corruption, and economic mismanagement. With chants of “Death to Rouhani” and “Death to Khamenei,” the demonstrators have contested not merely the Islamic Republic’s policies but also its very legitimacy. These developments offer the Trump administration an opportunity to advance U.S. interests by supporting the demonstrators against the regime while also promoting U.S. values by focusing the world’s attention on the regime’s rampant human rights abuses.

This report documents the human rights violations committed by 12 senior officials in the Islamic Republic. By adding these individuals to U.S. sanctions lists within the context of a broader economic pressure campaign, Washington can boost the morale of protesters, challenge the regime’s radical Islamist ideology, and make Tehran pay for its behavior. At the same time, America can send a message to its allies that the Iranian people deserve their robust and concerted support.

Iran is sensitive to international criticism of its human rights record. In Tehran’s view, the West seeks not only to defeat the Islamic Republic military but also to infiltrate the country with foreign values that subvert the culture and faith of the Islamic Revolution. In this sense, the mullahs regard their conflict with the West as a struggle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. By documenting the violence and repression that Tehran inflicts to quash dissent, the United States can undermine regime propaganda that portrays the country as a healthy society proud of its militant Shiite creed.

At the same time, the designation of Tehran’s offenders would signal to the Iranian people that America shares their goals and concerns. Foreign support may play an important role in raising the morale of protesters. In 2009, Washington’s tepid response to the regime’s brutal suppression of protests prompted many demonstrators to criticize President Barack Obama on Iran’s streets. Common slogans included, “Obama, Obama – either with us, or with them!”33 American inaction may have persuaded many Iranians that the uprising was unlikely to succeed.

New human rights sanctions can also prompt U.S. allies to follow suit. While committed in principle to the cause of human rights in Iran, European governments have largely retreated into passivity. Between 2011 and 2013, the European Union sanctioned 83 Iranian actors for committing human rights abuses, including three profiled in this report – and none thereafter. Although the EU has continued to renew these sanctions annually, most recently in April 2018, its failure to impose new designations stems in part from its misperception that President Hassan Rouhani, a self-described moderate, has been working to resolve the problem since his 2013 election. Yet the opposite is true. This report shows that the leading perpetrators of abuse in Iran serve in Rouhani’s cabinet or otherwise maintain close ties to him.

This paper explores the role that Muslim standup comedians are playing in breaking down cultural barriers, promoting inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue, as well as tackling the misperceptions about Muslim and Arab Americans in the United States. I argue that Muslim comedians are increasingly taking on the role of Gramscian “organic intellectuals” capable of successfully participating in a quintessentially American activity—standup comedy—on behalf of their respective communities. Some scholars of Islam may argue that Muslim comedians, if they have any significance at all, are confined to the periphery of any meaningful discussions regarding Islam and Muslims after September 11. I will show that this is not only false, but fails to fully grasp the multifaceted responses that have arisen to combat Islamophobia and Arabophobia in the United States since the events of September 11, 2001.

Монографія є одним з перших в Україні філософсько-правових досліджень евристичних можливостей антропологічних підходів до вивчення прав людини. У ній визначено поняття антропологічних дослідницьких підходів, запропоновано їх розгорнуту класифікацію, сформульовано дефініції понять “правова людина”, “юридична людина”, “правова особистість”, “юридична особистість”, в яких фіксуються відповідні філософсько-правові образи.

The monograph is devoted to the establishment of anthropological methodological approaches to researches of human rights in  philosophy of law. The concept and varieties of the anthropological approach are established and some of their heuristic possibilities in the research of human rights are developed. By virtue of the application of the said approaches in philosophy of law with a view to establishing particularity of the man-understanding in jurisprudence the conclusion that there are two images of the “man-in-law” – law-man and legal-man, which are in congruence with the images of law personality and legal personality – is drawn. The suggestions concerning optimization of applying in Ukrainian legislation the terms “man”, “personality”, “individuality”, “citizen” are developed.

This was the first-ever article to describe and analyze the possibility of a One-State Solution for Palestine/Israel from a Mizrahi positionality both in the Hebrew original and the English translation. Its composition -- like all of Lavie's writing about the Mizrahi feminist struggle in the context of the Question of Palestine -- has been fraught with all manner of relentless campaigns by those elements in academia that
would rather have Lavie and her research disappear. Needless to say that shortly after this article saw print in the Hebrew original in 2008 its analysis of the possibility for a one state solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict was appropriated and published without proper quotation or citation.

This paper briefly describes the Post Modernism philosophy, introduces the work of its key proponents, provides a critical appraisal of Post Modernism thought and finally it compares the Post Modernism philosophy with philosophical heritage of Islamic faith and civilization and recommends ways to cope up with the challenge of postmodernism.

The issues of slavery, concubinage, and the rape of women in warfare throughout history are subject to fierce intellectual, philosophical, and psychological discussion. They are issues that have led to painful doubts within many faith communities, including the Muslim community. This paper addresses the allegations that the early Muslims permitted and encouraged the rape of women in warfare and their exploitation as ‘sex slaves.’ These claims are based upon citing a set of historical facts and Islamic texts out of context, sometimes in the service of hardline anti-immigration politics intended to demonize and dehumanize Muslim immigrants on the whole as sexual predators. The legal status of sexual relationships within the historical institution of slavery (or more accurately in Islamic terms, the “custodianship of the right hand”) is explained in detail, and the firm prohibition of rape and sexual harm in early Islam is documented. It is also demonstrated that Islam, having inherited an historical system of economic slavery in Arabia, proceeded to humanize slaves and grant them rights and inherent dignity, with several indications in the law that logically resulted in universal emancipation. Finally, it will be proven that sexual consent, while difficult to define in law even today, was certainly a moral requirement as understood by the early Muslims and later scholars, including consent within the concubine relationship.

We live in an age of intermediated network communications. Although the internet includes many intermediaries, some stand heads and shoulders above the rest. This article examines some of the responsibilities of "Super-Intermediaries" such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, intermediaries that have tremendous power over their users' human rights. After considering the controversy arising from the incendiary YouTube video Innocence of Muslims, the article suggests that Super-Intermediaries face a difficult and likely impossible mission of fully servicing the broad tapestry of human rights contained in the International Bill of Human Rights. The article further considers how intermediary content-control procedures focus too heavily on intellectual property, and are poorly suited to balancing the broader and often-conflicting set of values embodied in human rights law. Finally, the article examines a number of steps that Super-Intermediaries might take to resolve difficult content problems and ultimately suggests that intermediaries subscribe to a set of process-based guiding principles-a form of Digital Due Process-so that intermediaries can better foster human dignity.

This book chapter offers an overview of challenges and opportunities for Tunisian women's rights before and after Tunisia's 2011 revolution. From Nouri Gana’s introduction: “Monica Marks deftly weaves together the ways in which the issue of women’s rights has been used and abused by Bourguiba and Ben Ali to maintain their hold on power. Counter-revolutionary forces, along with a host of opposition parties, have similarly wheeled out the issue of women’s rights in order to show how bad Ennadha would be for women despite Ennahda’s endorsement of the Personal Status Code of 1957 and of a new constitution that does not include Sharia law. What has muddled the waters even further, however, is the rise to prominence of Salafism, one of the most mediatized phenomena in postrevolutionary Tunisia, especially insofar as it directly affects women’s rights.”

In light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, we have seen a number of Muslim scholars reiterate the position of Islamic law on same-sex acts. What we have not seen much of, however, is reasoning explaining why Islamic law prohibits same-sex acts. Clearly many people today including Muslims do not understand why Islam or any religion would forbid homoeroticism. As it is often put, if two people love each other and want to consummate their love, what difference does it make if they happen to be of the same sex? What could be wrong about this?
To understand what is wrong requires addressing several large assumptions about sexuality and morality. These assumptions make it virtually impossible for people today to understand the moral reasoning and intuitions inherent to Islam's stance on homosexuality. But once those assumptions are addressed, then Islam's position starts to look more and more compelling. At the very least, Islam's position stops looking like sheer hate, bigotry, prudery, etc.
The way that I have framed my thoughts on this issue is in the form of a “debate” with myself. Over the years, we have all heard the typical arguments and one-liners in support of homosexuality, so much so that these arguments have become embedded into the way most of us think about the topic. I give voice to this position in the form of questions and charges that a typical pro-gay advocate would raise against Islam's stance on homosexuality. I then respond to these in turn, defending the Islamic view.

The path of prapatti or loving self-surrender traces its roots to Vedic texts, and was revealed again in the devotional oupourings of the twelve Alwars in the Tamil Divya-prabandhams. Their successors, Yamuna and Ramanuja gave concise and cryptic definitions of prapatti in writings such as the Stotra-ratna and the Sharanagati-gadya, which laid the foundations of more elaborate and structured commentaries by preceptors such as Vedanta Desika. The aspirant who follows the path of prapatti, known as a prapanna cultivates significant qualities of dependence on God, confessional feelings of helplessness, and a firm conviction that God alone will provide salvation and protection. This in turn affects the ways by which he or she behaves individually or engages with society to share the grace and benevolence of God.

Undoubtedly, the international human rights movements is one of numerous human advancements and achievements of the modern period that have challenged Muslims and the Islamic world. Almost too much has been said and written as to whether the classical tools of traditional islamic jurisprudence has sufficient potential to come to terms with contemporary human rights norms. When discussing the traditional islamic legal discourse on human rights and its relationship with modern legal philosophy, a perennial problem re- enters the field of discussion, that I characterise as non-complementary paradigms. Similar to the non-complementarity between Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics (both using a different language to depict the world and working at a certain level), modern judicial interpretation and legal philosophy on the one side and traditional Islam on the other make use of different languages based on different underlying presumptions, propositions,underpinnings,principles,theoretical bases and ontological and epistemological frameworks. While taking this fact into consideration, I still believe a harmonisation between the two is possible.
The paradox between strict universalism and cultural relativism - the former running the danger of imposing a western-centred notion of human rights that is often perceived by former colonies as a new form of cultural colonialism and the latter being susceptible for being abused and rationalised for obvious human rights violations and repressive policies - needs to be overcome by acknowledging cultural diversity and embracing an inclusive multicultural interpretation of human rights principles and a distribution of normative and interpretative authority among different cultures and civilisations. Islam, as one of the major civilisations of the modern world, can therefore as a matter of fact not be excluded from - even needs to be welcomed into - this process of interpretation, as is the case for all other cultures and civilisations world-wide.
Contrary to the reformist approaches of thinkers such as Kadivar or Khaled Abou el Fadl, I advocate an approach that is more grounded in traditional jurisprudence. While I genuinely appreciate reformist works and sincerely believe that they inspire and offer new frameworks for heated theoretical discussion, I believe that any attempt to reconcile or harmonise Islamic Law with modern human rights norms will be in need of an Islamic jurisprudential legitimacy and textual support in order to be to be heard and acknowledged by traditional mainstream circles, and to be a stimulator for change and transformation instead of limiting its impact to the bookshelf. All tools available in fiqh that have the potential to overcome possible clashes should be utilised and exhausted. Utilising the the traditional doctrines and tools of maqasid and maslahah (the commonweal of the community or society) effectively on the side of Islamic Law and the tool of ‘margin of appreciation’ on the side of human rights will therefore help to establish a more harmonist approach towards the issue.
I will try to demonstrate through a critical evaluation of different theoretical perspectives why I adopt this position. For this, I have selected two provisions of the ICCPR: Article 7 (Prohibition of torture or cruel, in- human or degrading treatment or punishment) and Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion). Due to the breathtaking amount of literature on these two particular rights, I will only highlight those contributions that to my assessment need to be contemplated on more intensely, instead of merely repeating what has already been said.

This essay draws on Immanuel Kant’s concept of enlightenment as an escape from self- imposed ignorance and argues that a similar concept of enlightenment can be understood within the Muslim context as escape from self-imposed jahiliyyah, which is understood as fear to exercise reason publicly. The article advocates for ijtihad, is critical of Taqlid, and invokes Islamic sources to invest confidence in contemporary use of reason for interpreting Islam.

The political reality of many countries in the Muslim World is untenable and reforms and change is absolutely necessary. This article argues that use of force and violence for political change is making things worse as one can witness in Syria and Iraq. The article advances a Qur'ānic perspective on the desirability of peace as a goal and peaceful means as instruments of change. The article acknowledges that the Qur'ānic sanction for use of force to defend religious freedom prcludes the advocacy of pacifism but nevertheless the article does make a strong case for privileging peace over use of force.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has announced a set of provisional guidelines concerning male circumcision, in which they suggest that the benefits of the surgery outweigh the risks. In this brief comment, I highlight a few of the key scientific and ethical issues worth considering in interpreting the CDC recommendations.

The spectrum of practices termed “Female Genital Mutilation” (or FGM) by the World Health Organization is sometimes held up as a counterexample to moral relativism. Those who advance this line of thought suggest the practices are so harmful in terms of their physical and emotional consequences, as well as so problematic in terms of their sexist or oppressive implications, that they provide sufficient, rational grounds for the assertion of a universal moral claim—namely, that all forms of FGM are wrong, regardless of the cultural context. However, others point to cultural bias and moral double standards on the part of those who espouse this argument, and have begun to question the received interpretation of the relevant empirical data concerning FGM as well. In this article I assess the merits of these competing perspectives. I argue that each of them involves valid moral concerns that should be taken seriously in order to move the discussion forward. In doing so, I draw on the biomedical “enhancement” literature in order to develop a novel ethical framework for evaluating FGM (and related interventions—such as female genital “cosmetic” surgery and non-therapeutic male circumcision) that takes into account the genuine harms that are at stake in these procedures, but which does not suffer from being based on cultural or moral double standards.