Nayeefa.
I think you are well on the way towards exposing the fraud of Human Rights. What we must do now, from our various traditions, is to tell a different and more robust story. It is now well established that there are no foundations upon which to base values or rights and any attempt to do so will be futile. Theology must also turn from foundationalism and find its sole warrant in the story of faith. However, this does not mean that we forgo the rational.
Peter Sellick

Nayeefa, I'm not sure if I've understood your argument fully but the impression I get is that you believe a faith in some kind of divinity is a much safer place to argue a foundation of human rights than the secular position.

I agree that absolutes are hard to argue from the agnostic/athiest position. I've come to accept that there are values I hold as important which it is difficult to defend in absolute terms. Values which I think make the world a better place if upheld.

The counter side of the argument is that those who believe if a higher power, a deity with absolute moral authority are often able to assume that deity in their wisdom has judged and found wanting groups and individuals (especially those who don't follow that deity). It appears to be very easy to put aside any realistic concept of human rights if a deity (who is wise beyond our understanding) has passed judgement.

My conclusion - the idea of basic human rights is not so much about faith in divity or otherwise, rather the values we hold.

R0bert

Quite right Robert

VERSION A of divinely based values

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=18609&pid=276298&mode=threaded&show=&st=120&#entry276298

POLYGAMY
Faithful2Allah thinks our laws on this matter are overuled by the Quran. She also shows the Sharia teaching. If you peruse it you will see the INCREDIBLE reasons where a man can have more than one wife and how he does NOT have to inform his existing wife about taking a new one!
It is justified on the ground (among others) that if a MAN is 'horny' and 'needs more sex' he should take a 2nd wife.

This thread is quite an insight into the various Muslim opinions on how to 'integrate'.
Another post says:

[but are we commanded to marry more than one wife, or is it simply a permissability? if it is the former, then i can understand how australian law would be in direct conflict with the shariah and in which case we'd have every right to break australian laws to fulfill our deen] <= This is seditious.

That poster here feels that if OUR Law is different to a Sharia 'command' (as opposed to a 'permission'(e.g. this would apply to interest, insulting or drawing mohammed etc) they have every right to BREAK it.

VERSION B Our existing laws, based on the Christian values. "One man one wife"

Pretty much the ONLY 'Law' that Christians would willfully break is one which stipulated we must 'deny Christ'. I hardly think the government would do such a thing. We would most likely also break a law which says we cannot use ALL of scripture in our Churches. (That would be a denial of Christ) We would FIGHT legally any law preventing us from publically using scripture in sharing our faith or demonstrating the falsehood of any teaching.

So, needless to say, many of us are politically active.

Nayeefa astutely and meticulously deconstructs all “other” ideologies in favour surprise surprise of the perfect Islamic Doctrinal Human Sanctity.
Fitra or natural law is a muslim belief that departs from the presupposition that all humans are born muslims - with a pure, inbuilt, and unadulterated universal operating system that Allah uses to communicate ‘naturally’ his decrees to the muslim believer.
Nayeefa then concludes:
>>the Islamic concept of fitra denotes “a common human ontology” that doctrinally makes a part of the Qur’anic world view <<
The problem is to the observer of Islamic law (Sharia), theory and practices are not reconcilable with universal human rights:
1. offensive, aggressive and unjust treatment of non-muslims living in Islamic states (Copts in Egypt.)
2. drinkers and gamblers whipped in public
3. husbands are allowed to hit their wives
4. Islam allows exact legal revenge (physical eye for physical eye)
5. a thief must have a hand cut off
6. highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated
7. homosexuals must be executed
8. adulterers are stoned to death
9. death for Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Muhammad, the Qur’an , or even sharia law itself
10. apostates are to be killed or severely punished

BD, once again in your haste to turn yet another thread into a muslim bashing exercise you've missed the point :).

Your own faith has plenty of examples of people who do good and people who do bad - the belief in a divine being who sets the rules seems to have little impact on people ability to act for good or bad as they prefer.

I'd started a message listing christain wrongdoings but that seemed pretty pointless, if you need examples of wrongdoings done in the name of christianityby people who claim to be christain I'm sure that there are plenty of posters willing to provide them. I'd prefer not to start a "christain bashing" thread.

I suspect that in most cases you would disagree strongly with those actions being a reasonable response to the teaching of the bible (except the ones from the bible - OT and completed in the NT etc).

Regrardless of the framework we put around our beliefs we tend to act in a manner which lines up with our character, the level of support for human rights or similar concepts often has little to do with our belief in a God or otherwise.

R0bert

I had serious concerns about the logic being applied in this article. I laughed out loud when I read the despotic states of the moderate Islamic political cultures in Jordan and Egypt account for much higher human rights scores, than the despotic secular states of Nazi Germany, North Korea, Uzbekistan and China.

God if I had to support an argument about the harshness and the nature of the anti human rights laws of Australia and support of the argument depended upon a comparison between secular and non secular states and I had to quote the human rights records of Egypt and Jordan and those of Nazi Germany, North Korea, Uzbekistan and China I'd be joined, in laughing myself to sleep at night, by a chorus of millions.

Why didn't you use the human rights record of one the worlds only two non-secular states...Iran...and the other secular Islamic states of Syria, Turkey or Palestine (I know, not yet a state but I think you get my drift). Or weren't they nation's selected for study and if they were not then the exercise would be a little suspect for lacking rigor. The link you provided doesn't work.

But the question I'd ask do the records of Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Palestine score lower than the scores of Nazi Germany, North Korea, Uzbekistan and China?

Egypt has a terrible history of suppressing it's Muslim Fundamentalists, the Muslim Brotherhood. So does Syria, remember Hama and the expulsion of the Palestinians? What about the secular but moderate Islamic political culture in Turkey with it's treatment of it's Kurdish minority.

If you have to criticise Australia's defense of it's democracy you should not use the records of the worlds worst states as a club.