Pages

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Klevius supports curing OIC's Human Rightsphobia because it would mean the inevitable death of islam



Human Rightsphobia (Sharia) is the very soul of islam. You cure it and the patient will die!









Muslim (?) Turan Kayaoğlu now criticizes islam in exactly the same way as Klevius has done for a decade. However, although he thus is late in performing the same blasphemy as Klevius, he sadly misses (How could he?!) the most important, namely that the reason for islam to be protected by diabolic blasphemy laws etc. is that islam can't survive without them because of its innate evilness!

In a paper, A Rights Agenda for the Muslim World? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Evolving Human Rights Framework, published by the Brookings Doha Center (BDC), Turan Kayaoğlu discusses how the OIC could improve on its disastrous Human Rights record due to its Sharia while still keeping the door open for Sharia. Eating the cake while keeping it intact. This is, by the way, the same logic as the Saudi's campaign of bribing Western politicians etc. to support "tolerance" for the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity. I tolerate your goodness and you tolerate my evilness.

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