In this part, I analyze a selected few articles of the OIC’s Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. (see Part 1)
(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.
(b) All human beings are Allah's subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.
The above paragraph establishes religion as a base for human rights. There is no support offered for this claim. In fact, it is clear that part “b” talks about pious Muslims being superior to other people by virtue of being pious Muslims. Again there is not supportive evidence for such a claim. This article obviates Muslim bigotry against other human beings, who do not believe in Allah, as well as those, who do not believe in any religion, namely agnostics, materialists, or atheists.
(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari'ah prescribed reason.
(b) It is forbidden to resort to any means which could result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by Allah is a duty prescribed by Shari'ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari'ah-prescribed reason.
Article 2 establishes Shari’a as the law of the land for all human societies. Since document was devised as a competitor of UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then it should apply to all humans in all societies. Article 2 is prescribing the 6th-century Islamic law to all societies of 20th-21st century. Authors of this declaration are nothing but bigoted Islamic supremacists, declaring supremacy of Islamic law over all other laws that exist anywhere in the world.
Article 2 simply aims to establish that Shari’a is binding upon all peoples. Such things are certainly talked about in Qom or Mecca. But pushing to impose it universally by all heads of the Islamic states shows how deep-rooted is Islamic bigotry across all sections of Muslim societies across the world.
(a) The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of making a family. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from exercising this right.
(b) The society and the State shall remove all obstacles to marriage and facilitate it, and shall protect the family and safeguard its welfare.
This article put no restrictions to marriage on the basis of race, color, etc…, but neglected to include religion in the mix. This is due to the Islamic bigotry and supremacy in its view of marriage. A Muslim man can marry a Christian or a Jew. But his children has to be Muslim. A Muslims woman cannot marry a non-Muslim unless he converts to Islam. Needless to say, their children have to be Muslims. This is Islamic supremacy at work here.
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has her own rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform, and has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.
(b) The husband is responsible for the maintenance and welfare of the family.
Article 6 is intended to show that Men and Women are not equal under the law. Each has their own rights to enjoy. Off course, in Islam, those rights are not the same for men and women.
The husband is put as the leader in the family. All civilized societies have certainly surpassed that idea, although women have taken the lead-role in families in many cultures throughout history. Today, women are the sole bread-earners in families. A large number of women work hard to earn incomes alongside their male partners to ensure her dignified position in the family.
Article 6 stems from the warped archaic sixth-century “worldview” ingrained in Islamic theology. Human societies surpassed that age. Men and women have different roles today, which is irreversible. This article only obviates how shameless the leading Muslims of the world are in seeking to impose their shameful 7th-century ideology on all human societies of today.
(a) As of the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents, the society and the state to be accorded proper nursing, education and material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must be safeguarded and accorded special care.
(b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah.
(c) Both parents are entitled to certain rights from their children, and relatives are entitled to rights from their kin, in accordance with the tenets of the shari'ah.
Article 7 is actually a violation of what understand as universal human rights. While putting Shari’a as the family foundation would not be approved by the world 75% non-Muslim peoples, this article also, in my view, entails a serious violation of human rights at the individual level. This article assumes that the moment of conception is the moment of birth of a child. This matter is highly controversial in bioethics. There is not a clear answer concerning this issue in related literature. I am a conservative person. If I had, in my own family, a situation where it was critical for me to make a choice between abortion and preservation of life, I would err on the side of life. But that is me, and the situation is for me and my own wife to discuss and follow a certain kind of action. But who am I to force my beliefs, choices or convictions on another person or another couple? This is a very personal matter. I believe individual and couples are capable enough to make their own choices that is consistent with their beliefs and convictions. Some choose abortion, others choose other options. The state needs to stay out of it. Part (a) of article 7 above goes against this view. Islamic human rights advocates want to force their will upon people of all ethical and religious convictions. The right to abortion is taken away completely. This, in my view, is a stark violation of individual human rights.
Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.
One wonders what is meant by “unspoiled nature.” This is nonsense. If I tell you “religion A has an unspoiled nature” or “religion A is the religion of fitra”. What does that mean? Whatever is the meaning, I believe those statements are designed to make Muslims feel good about Islam, because it is assumed as an "unspoiled" religion. Food may get spoiled and we throw it out. Spoilage makes sense when we talk about food. But what does it mean when you use it to describe a religion? This is only an uncritical judgmental statement to portray Islam as the sole good and worthy religion, because the Quran says that Christianity and Judaism are perverted religions.
This article obviates the fact that the attitude of the writers and signatories of this document are on par with bigoted Mullahs or Jihadis of the Al-Qaeda or Taliban variety. Nothing else is needed to discuss about this shameful Islamic human rights document. So, I will conclude by evaluating the last two articles of this declaration.
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 of any of the articles of this Declaration."
It is evident that bigoted authors and signatories of this document want to subjugate the totality of human societies to the asinine rules of Shari’a. Islam has to be combated on many levels, because of its prejudice, supremacy, and human rights abuses that are entailed in the Shari’a – which contradicts the universal equality of all humans. I end this article with a quote from the ever great Wafa Sultan. On the relations involved between the hopeless UN, and the OIC and Islam in general, she writes:
To add salt to wound, the UN has degenerated into the puppet of Arab and Islamic forces operating freely in its own hallways and offices. It has evolved into a tool of the Organization of Islamic conference – the 56 Islamic nations seeking through the UN to impose international blasphemy laws supposedly labeled "defamation of religion."
We understand this would criminalize anyone criticizing Islam. To be specific, the UN aims to suppress free speech globally – and especially the freedom to oppose many harsh tenets of Islam's Sharia law. Without a doubt, this plan to criminalize a genuine and necessary discourse on Islam is seditious and most dangerous.