www.islam-watch.org

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam -- Declaration of Human Rights or Human Suffering and Islamic Bigotry? Part 2

E-mail Print PDF

In this part, I analyze a selected few articles of the OIC’s Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. (see Part 1)

ARTICLE 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.

Analysis:

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.

ARTICLE 2:

(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.

Analysis:

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.

ARTICLE 5:

(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.

Analysis:

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.


ARTICLE 6:

(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.

Analysis:

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.

ARTICLE 7:

(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.

Analysis

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.

ARTICLE 10:

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.

Analysis

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.

Comments (15)Add Comment
0
Mr
written by Mohamed , July 09, 2012
Muslims are stupid.
0
All double talk
written by dead or alive , July 09, 2012
@Kope,Is the white man the only race on earth to `speak with fork tongue`? The world is going from bad to worst.
0
Big Kammuna
written by AFgirl , July 09, 2012
Great article. Very much appreciate the time you took to go over the new Egyptian constitution. However, you could have just saved yourself the work of writing two articles are just quoted Article 24 of the constitution:

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

Shariah > constitution. That's the bottom line.
0
@AFgirl
written by pipo , July 10, 2012
--The Cairo declaration of human rights in Islam-- is not the new Egyptian constitution but the ISLAMIC COUNTERPART of

--The Universal declaration of Human Rights-- as it was proclaimed by the UN in 1948.


I don't think there is a NEW Egyptian constitution yet, more a provisional one with 'amendments' to the old one functioning in the era of Mubarak and Sadat... Those 'amendments' would probably make an interesting article on IW.
0
...
written by AFgirl , July 10, 2012
My mistake. That'll teach me to read more carefully lol.
0
...
written by vbv , July 10, 2012
Universal humanrights and sharia can never go together. Sharia is an arab racist barbaric code that does not respect any rights of civilised societies and nations, It is vicious, highly bigoted and sectarian. Under the sharia code all religions except islam is outlawed , and it gives full hand to muslims to murder, massacre, confiscate the wealth of all nonmuslims. And ultimately it gives precedence to the arabs , as a socalled "chosen people" to subject everyone else under their control with a sham 'caliphate' that would dictate terms with a threatening " comply or else you are screwed", giving full licence to carry out pogroms like their fake 'prophet' Muhamad did in his lifetime. Islam is the biggest fraud, and sham , and talk of human rights under this arabic barbarianism is the worst and most cruel joke you can ever think of. It is nothing but a diabolic design to force this barbaric cult down everyone's throat.
0
@ VBV
written by balam , July 10, 2012
After your comments,It is hard to add any thing.May we call you VBV PBUH because you have probably led a better moral life than Mohammad.I don't think you have ever screwed a little innocent child.You have never murdered or robbed people.HUMAN RIGHTS ARE GIVEN BY HUMAN BEING.ABOUT MUSLIMS ONE CAN SAY:TAKE HUMANITY OUT OF A HUMAN BEING AND YOU ARE LEFT WITH A GOOD MUSLIM.CAN O.I.C REMOVE BLASPHEMY LAWS FROM PAKISTAN AND OTHER MUSLIM COUNTRIES? ISLAM IS AN INSECURE CULT OF DECEIT AND VIOLENCE.IT CAN NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT LAWS WHICH PROTECT ONLY MUSLIMS.
0
...
written by HenriMaurice (Ex-Muslim) , July 11, 2012
0
balam
written by vbv , July 11, 2012
You are getting personal again. I am not a muslim and I do not subscribe to any faith , much less the madness of monotheism. I dissent the epitheth PBUH or any other bullshit of monotheistic cults, like "may Jesus save you" or "yahweh curse you and dump you into the fiery 'Hell' ",etc. I am an atheist from India , and I resent any allusion to mad monotheism that has caused so much destruction and loss of lives around the world in the name of a lonely spook called "Yahweh/Allah" who is supposed to be so "merciful" ,yet so vengeful, narcissitic, craving undivided adulation and abject slavery and submission from the zealots.
Humanrights are given by humans , so also all the socalled "divine laws" concoctions by a band of scheming scoundrels hungry for easy wealth and unquestioned political power and corruption . When monotheistic west asian religion and clergy reigned supreme they wrought havoc on common people in cohort with the autocrats, monarchs, fuedal lords,etc. They played dirty and bloody politics when humanrights as we know today , which is a secular ideal. Other monotheistic cults have mellowed over time with the advance of civilisation , science, technology andknowledge , except islam which refuses to come out of its deep dark hole of superstitions, misery and bigotry; and it may never come out of its dark shitty hole at all. Muslims cannot compete in the modern world since they are backward, so they have a treacherous design in bringing everyone down to their level of incompetence and barbarianism. They still believe that they are some kind of superpower of the 11th to 14th century AD ,which they are so nostalgic about ,unwilling to see that the world has gone far ahead from those ages of islamic conquest full of plunderings, massacres, rapes and slavery of conquered peoples. They live and feed on those depraved dreams. That is why they find it so incopmatible to coexist with other humans who are not subscribing to their barbaric cult.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson , July 12, 2012
vbv. You write " I am not a muslim and I do not subscribe to any faith".

According to Quran an atheist is much better than a polytheist. If from India it is all the more better quality. God tells that he would not tolerate associates in his rule.

The first part of Islam declaration is لَا إِلَـٰهَ which means there is no God.

You are half Muslim. Most of muslims are polytheists or Mushrikeen.
0
Reed Wilson
written by vbv , July 13, 2012
Polytheism is far better than monotheism. It is tolerant and allows dissensions, difference of opinions and the right to reject or accept any deity. Monotheism is barbaric, insular, extremely intolerant, incites people to violence and hatred. Monotheism calls atheists and agnostics as 'heretics' and treats them more contemtuously than even a polytheist. A 'heretic ' can be put to death in the most horrendous manner and the history of islam and christianity is replete with thousands of incidents where the socalled 'heretics' were executed or burnt at stake. Monotheism is not only insular ,shallow , primitive but also believes in a deity that always has a foul temper, bloodthirsty, vengeful , narcissistic and calls for the conversion or destruction of all other belief/non-belief sytems. It is backward, extremely superstitious about a socalled "Hell" and "Heaven" and also an imaginary spook who inspite of its evil and monstrous nature is supposed to be "merciful". Some "mercy" indeed with all the blood that has been shed in the name of that imaginery spook and its founder "prophet" with a convenient tool called "blasphemy". You have to believe in all such stupid things like heaven , hell, satan, jinn, angel,etc all plain bullshit fit only for deludednuts. Polytheism is any day better.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson , July 14, 2012
Thank you vbv. I was talking in Quranic terms. I did not give my opinion.
0
vbv
written by Yibel , July 18, 2012
"Polytheism is any day better." Which polytheism are you referring to?

The Aztecs were polytheistic and they ate people for lunch, and dinner, and breakfast, and between meal snacks.

The Greeks were polythestic and they fought with each other constantly. Zeus was "a deity that always has a foul temper, bloodthirsty, vengeful , narcissistic and calls for the conversion or destruction of all other belief/non-belief sytems."
Narcissus was narcissistic, which is where the word come from.

The Romans were polythestic and they set out to conquer the world in order to take slaves to build their empire. And they were extremely superstitious about a socalled "Hell" - reached by crossing the river Styx in a boat rowed by the demi-god Charon who you needed to pay with a coin which is why Romans placed coins over the eyes of the dead and "Heaven"

The Viking had many gods and a heaven called Valhalla where the warriors went to drink and party with lots of busty maidens after death in battle.

Shiva is a destroyer god - doesn't like people very much - always causing mischief in the land - so Vishnu has to send his Avatars to save mankind and clean up the mess. Kali is vicious and has Thugi followers who assassinate people; she also brings plagues such as cholera. Sounds like a real fun bunch!
0
...
written by Dwito , July 18, 2012
Yibel, It's an interesting post. I'm willing to join. Kindly allow me one more day. I hope my soft engineer will sort the problem in my machine by tomorrow.
Thanks in advance.
0
To Dwito, reply to PT. II
written by Yibel , July 19, 2012
Carrying on with our earlier conversation:

"Buddhism prevailed side by side with Hinduism in that lovely country known as
"Gandhar", a kingdom of that same ancient India, or Bharat."

When I wrote: "what was once a very lovely country - now called Afganistan," I was referring to the area northwest of the Hindu Kush and Gandhara, known in ancient times as Bactria. According to ancient Greek historians, the Bactrian Empire consisted of "a thousand cities, wallowing in wealth." This region hosted Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Christians until the arrival of the Rashiduns and Umayyads (MUslims) in the 7th century CE when they were slaughtered and the Muslims took over.

Note to Archpagan: These three great monotheistic religions (Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Christianity) lived side-by-side in peace and harmony for centuries. As the messenger of the God YHVH said: 'Peace on earth toward (will be among) men of good will.' It was the Zoroastrian Magi ("wise men") who brought gifts when Yah'shua (Jesus) was born, saying 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews?' Bible NT Mt. 2:1-23

Please do join in - the topic of the history of the concept of human rights is a vital component in the fight against oppression.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna

islamic-jihad-cover


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
islamic-jihad-bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Announcements

Sign petition:  Grant Imran Firasat Asylum in the USA

imran-firasat

Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy

Syndication