Human Rightsphobia (Sharia) is the very soul of islam. You cure it and the patient will die!
Based on interviews with senior OIC islamofascists, the paper takes a close look at the organization’s various human rights instruments and alleges to note a shift in its approach - within the IPHRC regarding the rights of the child – that it seems to have dropped a former emphasis on the centrality of sharia.
However, this is not the case but rather a mirage. Because OIC has
already excluded girls via a separate “girls' protocol”, and
because nothing hinders male muslims from enjoying the fruits of
Human Rights, the rights of the child can safely be applied without
endangering islam's sexist basis (see Negative Human Rights). Due to the fact that Sharia/Cairo declaration upholds a rigid sex segregation (whereas Human Rights do not) oppression against girls/women are from scratch embedded. And this inevitable fact doesn't change no matter how much effort is made to "protect" girls/women. The Arabic Sharia term
ihsan means an unchangeable state and isn't only applied to the sanctioning of marital rape but to whatever is a product of sex segregation.
Turan Kayaoğlu's blasphemy against Sharia
In the two decades from the Cairo
Declaration in
1990 to the establishment of the
Independent Per-
manent Commission on Human Rights in
2011,
the OIC has gradually shed the language
of sharia.
The Cairo Declaration referred to
sharia as its only
source, the Covenant on the Rights of
the Child
mentioned it within the context of
Islamic values
(2005), and the IPHRC and its statute
(2011) aban-
doned references to sharia altogether.
Despite being
well placed to address
those challenges (Klevius: I.e. Human Rightsphobia in the form of
Sharia), the most
important organization among Muslim states, the
OIC, has so far failed to do so. The
findings of this
study suggest two main reasons. One is
the ab-
sence of a clear framework for
explaining how the
conservative brand of Islam dominant
among the
OIC’s most powerful member states is
compatible
with international human rights. The
second and
often overlooked reason is that the
OIC’s state-
centrism prevents the transfer of
authority to a su-
pranational body and limits the ability
of NGOs
to lobby within the OIC. As previously
discussed,
the establishment of an international
body with
authority to set and monitor the
implementation
of human rights standards and the
promotion of
the role of NGOs are the two major
mechanisms
for advancing human rights on the
international
stage. Shortcomings in this regard are
also criti-
cal in explaining human rights failures
in Muslim
societies.
Turan Kayaoğlu on The Centrality of
Sharia in the Cairo Declaration
CAIRO DECLARATION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS IN ISLAM (1990)
In 1990, the OIC approved the Cairo
Declaration
on Human Rights in Islam. Some critics
of the OIC
charged that the Cairo Declaration –
prepared in
advance of the 1993 World Conference on
Human
Rights – was an attempt to undermine
the UDHR.
Others, however, perceived it as an
attempt to rec-
oncile the concept of human rights and
Islam.
From an international human rights
perspective,
the controversial nature of the Cairo
Declaration
lies in its claim of adherence to
Islamic law (Sharia). The
document’s preamble affirms that
“fundamental
rights and universal freedoms are an
integral part
of [Islam]” and that these rights and
freedoms are
“binding divine commandments”
revealed to the
Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. Yet
sharia is
invoked in the Declaration in ways that
many in-
terpret as constraining universal
rights. Article 22
states that “everyone shall have the
right to express
his opinion freely in such manner as
would not be
contrary to the principles of sharia,”
while Article
12 affirms that “every man shall have
the right,
within the framework of sharia, to free
movement.”
Articles 24 and 25 further solidify the
supremacy
of sharia by asserting that the body of
Islamic law
is the Declaration’s “only source
of reference.”
For critics of the Declaration, such
cursory use of
sharia to justify sweeping limitations
on universal
human rights indicates four important
shortcom-
ings. First, it renders the document
too restric-
tive and undermines the universality of
the rights
.
it describes.
Klevius: Please, forgive me Mr Turan
Kayaoğlu but you have missed the very point of islam namely its
racist/sexist and totalitarian roots. What made/makes islam popular is what
now makes it collide with Human Rights! I.e. what made OIC abandon Human Rights in the first place!
Secondly, the Declaration – perhaps
understandably – fails to specify
what exactly
constitutes sharia, meaning that its
restrictions of
the rights mentioned are ambiguous.
Further, the
state’s role in defining and applying
sharia means
that the Cairo Declaration empowers
governments
over individuals.24 In most cases, the
integration of
sharia into the domestic legal systems
of Muslim-
majority states gives the state a
degree of control
over the definition and application of
sharia.25 For
instance, Egypt’s Supreme
Constitutional Court,
Iran’s Guardian Council of the
Constitution, and
Pakistan’s Supreme Court are all
state-based au-
thorities that issue rulings on the
principles and
precepts of sharia. Even in Saudi
Arabia, where
sharia continues to be “identified
with a commu-
nity of scholars, trained in autonomous
educational
institutions,”26 state bureaucracies
have enormous
influence on the legal system.27 In the
absence
of an international authority to define
sharia, the
Cairo Declaration effectively
diminishes the uni-
versality of human rights by relegating
them to the
interpretations of national
governments.
Finally, many human rights scholars
argue that the
Cairo Declaration – largely through
its alignment
with sharia – directly contradicts
certain interna-
tional human rights.
As Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim
points out,
most traditional interpretations of sharia accept the legitimacy of slavery, grant
only subor-
dinate status to religious minorities,
circumscribe
women’s rights, and prohibit
conversion from Is-
lam. This is not to say that sharia by
necessity
contradicts ideas of international
human rights;
numerous reform-minded scholars have
offered
new interpretations of Islamic law that
seek to rec-
oncile the two.29 Even more
traditionally oriented
scholars – as well as some Islamist
groups – have
increasingly turned to notions such as
maqasid al-
sharia (higher objectives of the law)
and maslaha
(public interest) to endorse
interpretations of sha-
ria that minimize contradictions with
international
human rights norms.30 Still, the Cairo
Declaration
is the product of OIC member states
with central-
ized, conservative interpretations of
Islamic law
that include Iran and Saudi Arabia. As
such, the
Declaration fails in itself to
reconcile conflicts be-
tween sharia and ideas of human
rights.31
These shortcomings render the Cairo
Declaration
ineffective as a mechanism for the
promotion and
protection of human rights.
Turan Kayaoğlu's conclusions and Recommendations
The international human rights community
faces daunting challenges in advancing
hu-
man rights in the Muslim world. Despite
being
well placed to address those
challenges, the most
important organization among Muslim
states, the
OIC, has so far failed to do so. The
findings of this
study suggest two main reasons. One is
the ab-
sence of a clear framework for
explaining how the
conservative brand of Islam dominant
among the
OIC’s most powerful member states is
compatible
with international human rights. The
second and
often overlooked reason is that the
OIC’s state-
centrism prevents the transfer of
authority to a su-
pranational body and limits the ability
of NGOs
to lobby within the OIC.
Klevius: This is the hole point of
islamofascist OIC and its fanatic (he himself says he wants to
reinstate an Ottoman Caliphate based on Sharia) Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.
However, what is really worrying is that Turan Kayaoğlu still seems to see, without any grounds for it, a Human Rights approach for OIC/islam where there clearly is none.
Give a hand to islam and you'll get the devil in the boat. That's what happened in, for example, Nigeria.
-->According to Max Gbanite, a strategic security consultant, former President Olusegun Obasanjo's decision to allow the implementation of Sharia in the northern Nigeria led to the development of the islamic muslim terror organization Boko Haram.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment