UN Human Rights compared to Islamic Human Rights

[Willamena]

I disagree. One small caveat is the Human Rights council should, necessarily, be comprised of nations that have very good Human Rights records. It's just silly to pollute the atmosphere with some of the members that have been installed over the last few years and who are currently on the Council.

But then it's not human rights, it's What-I-Believe rights.

 

[Father Heathen]

Back in the 1970s I used to believe we were ready for universal rights statements. But whether because I learned better or due to actual change, I no longer think so.

There is no hope for such statements as long as significant segments of people in supposedly developed countries think so little of air bomb droppings or concealed carry is discussed as if it were a personal right or could ever become one.

Quite simply, very few people even want universal rights at all.

Perhaps you should explain how self defense and human rights are at odds so that you post doesn't look like a mindless non sequitur.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps you should explain how self defense and human rights are at odds so that you post doesn't look like a mindless non sequitur.

Thanks. It did indeed escape me that such a need might present itself.

In a nutshell, it is because people often fail to realize that self defense does not imply a license to fire or own weaponry.

Human history has relied so heavily and for so long on warfare in order to solve demographic dilemmas that such a basic fact is very difficult for many people to accept. I fear we have grown much too used to warfare and even to genocidal impulses.

We have certainly grown used to it in the last few decades, perhaps straightly so since the 1950s or even the 1940s.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Muslims on this thread are saying that no one has authority - but I bet the Muslims who run the OIC *think* they have some authority. Certainly as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the OIC appears to have authority.

Muslims often seem to have a strange relationship with authority and particularly with the admission of having authority.

On the one hand, they value hierarchy and obedience very much. On the other, they dislike admitting that it is so and often make a point of disqualifying their authorities by claiming that it is the Quran and/or Islam that they obey, not the authority itself.

Quite frankly, that is both dishonest and unhealthy.

 

[DawudTalut]

The world needs to come together and agree on universal human rights. While all nations struggle to provide basic human rights for their people, when it comes to basic human rights, there is a clear division between the Muslim world and the rest of the world...

In 1948 the UN created the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Many nations signed this agreement, but many Muslim majority nations did not. Later, in 1990 the OIC, a multi-nation, Islamic organization created the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights", to counter the UN's declaration. Among other things, the Cairo Declaration differed by saying:

- Human rights are subservient to Sharia
- women do not have equal rights to men
- apostasy is a crime
- blasphemy is a crime
- marrying people from certain other religions is a crime.

In summary, the International commission of Jurists declared that the Cairo Declaration codifies "an intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women".

The Cairo Declaration was not created by some fringe group of Muslims. This is a declaration carefully drafted by the OIC, an Islamic group with 57 member nations.

Have this so-called OIC done ANY THING when Muslims suffers by their rulers, their own people and by others.

Have it done ANY THING to remove suffering of Muslims in natural disasters?

So please do not think these are anythings practical. These are things on paper ONLY.

At maximum it is "Oh! I see" [OIC] and turn the face other way. Enjoy life. Let the needy die.

All thing your tender heart observe belong to latter-days' weaknesses [ which humbly I have described to you in another thread, with promised solution].

Thanks for caring.

 

[Woodrow LI]

What does that mean in practice, if anything?

It sure looks like Sheiks and Imans have religious authority over other Muslims. Am I misunderstanding their roles?

More like some Sheiks and Imams misunderstand their roles.

Being a Person who wears both titles, I can honestly say I have no more religious authority than the newest Muslim.

Sheik is a title of respect similar to the English Mister. It is used for a very wide range of people. I wear the title as a respect for my old age. I got it because I just happened to live longer than the other kids on the block.

It is alo a political title used to address Landowners, Tribal leaders, etc It is also a title given to those that have a high level of education. It can be used to address a person that has achieved a Ph.D or equal in Religious Studies. as such a Sheik is expected to have knowledge about Islam, but that does not give them any authority over anyone.

An Imam is the person who leads the daily obligatory prayers. Usually the oldest person in the community. They have no religious authority.

A Mufti (Mullah for Shia) has the legal authority to issue rulings on Islamic Jurisprudence. They are Lawyers and are to have a minimum of a PhD in Islamic Jurisprudence. Even there the rulings are opinions and not considered to be infallible

There are Religious Leaders among the Shi'ites but as I have very little knowledge about the Shi'ite I do not know the extent of their roles, just my own opinions which may be wrong.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The world needs to come together and agree on universal human rights. While all nations struggle to provide basic human rights for their people, when it comes to basic human rights, there is a clear division between the Muslim world and the rest of the world...

In 1948 the UN created the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Many nations signed this agreement, but many Muslim majority nations did not. Later, in 1990 the OIC, a multi-nation, Islamic organization created the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights", to counter the UN's declaration. Among other things, the Cairo Declaration differed by saying:

- Human rights are subservient to Sharia
- women do not have equal rights to men
- apostasy is a crime
- blasphemy is a crime
- marrying people from certain other religions is a crime.

In summary, the International commission of Jurists declared that the Cairo Declaration codifies "an intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women".

The Cairo Declaration was not created by some fringe group of Muslims. This is a declaration carefully drafted by the OIC, an Islamic group with 57 member nations.

Thank youmeritpublishing
There are alsoother issuesdid not speakof the Conference
Like the concept of dhimmi and human rights non-Muslims in Islamic States
This is therealIslam
Islampreachesin bothStatesfreely
But prevents speech and discussion on Islam and Islamic proselytizing within States prevents
Potexudesthe
The world should know the truth about this religion
I repeatmy thanksto you

 

[Tali018]

I disagree. One small caveat is the Human Rights council should, necessarily, be comprised of nations that have very good Human Rights records. It's just silly to pollute the atmosphere with some of the members that have been installed over the last few years and who are currently on the Council.

But most of the board don't.
United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Father Heathen]

Thanks. It did indeed escape me that such a need might present itself.

In a nutshell, it is because people often fail to realize that self defense does not imply a license to fire or own weaponry.

Human history has relied so heavily and for so long on warfare in order to solve demographic dilemmas that such a basic fact is very difficult for many people to accept. I fear we have grown much too used to warfare and even to genocidal impulses.

We have certainly grown used to it in the last few decades, perhaps straightly so since the 1950s or even the 1940s.

That still doesn't explain what an individual citizen owning a firearm has to do with military conflict between opposing states or genocide committed by states.

 

[LuisDantas]

That still doesn't explain what an individual citizen owning a firearm has to do with military conflict between opposing states or genocide committed by states.

States are just the collective of citizens.

 

[Father Heathen]

States are just the collective of citizens.

So I have as much control, power, and influence as the president or a congressman or senator (or the lobbies, corporations, banks, etc. that pocket them)?

 

[LuisDantas]

More like some Sheiks and Imams misunderstand their roles.

Being a Person who wears both titles, I can honestly say I have no more religious authority than the newest Muslim.

Sheik is a title of respect similar to the English Mister. It is used for a very wide range of people. I wear the title as a respect for my old age. I got it because I just happened to live longer than the other kids on the block.

It is alo a political title used to address Landowners, Tribal leaders, etc It is also a title given to those that have a high level of education. It can be used to address a person that has achieved a Ph.D or equal in Religious Studies. as such a Sheik is expected to have knowledge about Islam, but that does not give them any authority over anyone.

An Imam is the person who leads the daily obligatory prayers. Usually the oldest person in the community. They have no religious authority.

A Mufti (Mullah for Shia) has the legal authority to issue rulings on Islamic Jurisprudence. They are Lawyers and are to have a minimum of a PhD in Islamic Jurisprudence. Even there the rulings are opinions and not considered to be infallible

There are Religious Leaders among the Shi'ites but as I have very little knowledge about the Shi'ite I do not know the extent of their roles, just my own opinions which may be wrong.

Thanks for replying, Woodrow.

I am a bit surprised by your reply. My experience with Islam, indirect as it is, makes it appear very emphatic on reliance on proper hierarchy and authorities.

For instance, would you happen to have seen an excellent Iranian movie from 2011, known in English as "A Separation"? Highly recommended.

One of its key scenes shows a well-meaning woman feeling thorn between conflicting duties and calling a phone number for help on interpreting his religious duties. Maybe that character wasn't particularly representative, nor the existence of the phone service?

Another episode that comes to mind is that of when Brazilian diplomacy asked the press to avoid showing pictures of Iman Ruhollah Khomeini back in the late 1980s, because it was deemed a lack of proper etiquette and respect for his role and authority. Granted, it may have been a misunderstanding or misrepresentation, but I would like to know if you have any comments about that.

 

[LuisDantas]

So I have as much control, power, and influence as the president or a congressman or senator (or the lobbies, corporations, banks, etc. that pocket them)?

No, but if you take elected roles seriously, you should seek coherence between what you expect of yourself and what you expect from them.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Thanks for replying, Woodrow.

I am a bit surprised by your reply. My experience with Islam, indirect as it is, makes it appear very emphatic on reliance on proper hierarchy and authorities.

For instance, would you happen to have seen an excellent Iranian movie from 2011, known in English as "A Separation"? Highly recommended.

One of its key scenes shows a well-meaning woman feeling thorn between conflicting duties and calling a phone number for help on interpreting his religious duties. Maybe that character wasn't particularly representative, nor the existence of the phone service?

Another episode that comes to mind is that of when Brazilian diplomacy asked the press to avoid showing pictures of Iman Ruhollah Khomeini back in the late 1980s, because it was deemed a lack of proper etiquette and respect for his role and authority. Granted, it may have been a misunderstanding or misrepresentation, but I would like to know if you have any comments about that.

Iran is almost 100% Shia. The Shi'ite have a different concept about Religious leadership. Such as the Ayatoolah is the "Supreme Spiritual Leader" and has authority over the Iranian President. I really do not know very Much about Shia, there are none up here in the Dakotas. But there is a Shi'ite Mosque in Austin TX that I went to once, but never really got to know any Shia.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, but if you take elected roles seriously, you should seek coherence between what you expect of yourself and what you expect from them.

Still, none of this explains how a private, responsible, law abiding citizen owning a handgun is somehow detrimental to human rights and causes war and and genocide.

 

[LuisDantas]

Still, none of this explains how a private, responsible, law abiding citizen owning a handgun is somehow detrimental to human rights and causes war and and genocide.

By being a part of it.

 

[YmirGF]

But most of the board don't.
United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congratulations! That is my point.

 

[Father Heathen]

By being a part of it.

You still fail to explain the correlation, so yeah, mindless non sequitur.

 

[steeltoes]

What is the purpose of all this Islam bashing, is it an attempt to justify the incessant bombing of Iraq by the U.S. military?

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi paarsurrey,

If I was interested in a theoretical discussion of how to interpret the Quran, your suggestion might be interesting. But the reality in the world today is that millions of Muslims are living under the authority of leaders who deny them the human rights listed in the OP. So your interpretation of the Quran might be just fine, but the leaders of the OIC think that the human rights listed in the OP are un-Islamic. (BTW, millions of non-Muslims are also denied basic human rights, but in this thread I thought it was useful to discuss a document drafted by the powerful OIC that is in conflict with the rest of the world.)

This is a religious education forum not a political one. When somebody mentions Islam and targets it then one should prove one's point of view viz a viz Quran. It is rational.

Regards