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.

Dear Sells and R0bert,

Thank you for your posts. My article was not bent on proving whether human rights principles were universal or relative [although I do hold an opinion about this, but it wasn't my task to portray them in this specific article].

I've merely attempted to state that unless a normative judgment is made possible -- either in the favour of universalism or relativism --there will always remain a perceived sense of double standard with regard to the protection of human rights (e.g. Nguyen's case).

The core argument of my essay was that if we were to promote the universality of human rights principles, then it couldn't be *effectively* defended by means of *exclusive* rationalism (although rationalism is indeed one of the key elements to upholding human rights principles). Given the postmodernist arguments as to the definition of 'values', a 'value-oriented' ethos couldn't be defended by means of rationalism alone. On the basis of historical reality, it is impossible to accept the existence of a standard in 'reason'.

The sanctity of human beings is a truism. It's like a matter of faith, you have to accept it while acknowledging it's beyond proof or disproof *if* you were to promote the universalist viewpoint. The notion of moral worth and endowment of the humankind merits to be well accommodated into diverse religious, non-religious, Western and non-Western traditions the world over. Hence, arises the possibility of defending the universalist standpoint once it's de-linked from a particular 'deity' -- be it a Christian or Muslim God. Sadly, BD and Couch seem to have interpreted it the other way around.

Regards,
Nayeefa.

Dear BD,

"One man one wife" based on Christian values? Could you kindly provide some references from the Bible where Jesus endorses a ban on polygamy, please? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that the prophets mentioned in the Bible were polygamous.

By the way, did you know that the Qur’an put a conditional (equitable treatment) limit (a maximum of 4 spouses) on polygamy in an era when there was no upper limit for polygamous relationship and women were considered as a commodity. As a matter of fact, the Qur’an unequivocally exhorted one to entering into a monogamous relationship as it declared, "You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire…" (Qur'an: 4: 3, 129).

Dear Couch,

You may like to read one of my articles: http://members.optusnet.com.au/nayeefa/HumanRights
where an ultra-brief comparison between Islamic and UDHR principles has been made. It's my plan to issue a longer version on the subject in a not-too-distant future.

Dear future posters:

I'll be back on 1st of February to respond to any query. In the meantime, you're most welcome to furnish your comments, feedback, queries etc.

Cheers,

Nayeefa.

Nayeefa,

Thanks for replying to my post. I read your article and it was not much more elucidating than the article on OLO.

However my opinion still remains.

Just one point to ponder on while you’re away:

Assuming that the Qur’an was the revelation from Allah to humanity –

1. Why was it given in Arabic and for thirteen centuries could never be translated for the rest of the world to examine?

2. Why does it take so many other books to de-code its contextual meaning and so many scholars to interpret?

Looking forward to chatting with you soon

Many thanks

Part 1.

What utter rot.

Your article started with an unsupported and biased criticism of Australia’s new anti terror laws
‘The dawn of the year 2006 has been marked by Howard Government’s Orwellian “anti-terror laws”, which have sought to violate human rights principles as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the UN General Assembly.’
And concluded with a biased finding that while natural law can exist outside of Christian thought it needs some basis in a belief in something of greater worth than mere human society, and slyly you infer the Islamic concept of ‘fitra’ and natural law are identical.
‘It is safe, therefore, to conclude that unless rationalism is anchored in a faith, in the transcendent nature of the universe and inherent moral endowment of human beings, the universality of human rights principles can never be defended. This inherent moral worth and endowment of humankind is precisely the essence of (de-Christianised) natural Law, which is generally recognised as the historical and philosophical foundation of the modern notion of human rights. Once de-linked from Christian thought, the essence of natural Law can be accommodated into both religious and agnostic world views. To cite an example here, the Islamic concept of fitra denotes “a common human ontology” that doctrinally makes a part of the Qur’anic world view Thus, natural Law and fitra are identical in essence.’
What was discussed in between the intro and conclusion were ideas and notions about the application of HR from various modern philosophical viewpoints. One idea I do agree with:
‘The belief in the worth of human rationality as an absolute standard (for example, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism) ultimately collapses once “revelation” is separated from “reason” in the quest for the truth and justice.’
This is occurring right now and until post modernism this was the accepted belief of western civilisation. It extended way back past the musings of the enlightenment. Our society had always included the spiritualism contained in the Hebrew scriptures and the teachings of Christ. Among the many philosophers who wrote on just these topic’s was Thomas Aquinas

Coach,

The first translation of the Quran from Arabic was into Latin in the year 1143.
It was kept as a ‘confidential study material’ for missionary purposes and was not released formally for another 4 centuries (1543). The second translation was into French in 1647. The first English translation (from the Latin version) was in 1698 by Father Ludvic Maracci.

Meaning translation have to be considered when you translate from old languages like Hebrew & Arabic. Reason being the origin of words in Arabic language is 50,000 and the maximum number of derivatives is 43 (adding up to almost 2million words). In English language the origin of words is around 25,000 and the maximum derivatives of each word are around 11 (adding up to 250-300,000 words). You cannot compress languages with a factor 10:1 unless using meaning translation. “Pickthall” is a good reference.

The same scenario is with Hebrew and even Chinese languages. “Meaning translation” was used on non religious books like ‘The art of war’ by SunTzu.

Keith,

Agree with your analysis except for one issue:

Human rights & modernisation was initiated by individual reformists (or groups) subject to economical, political and social trends ie secularism.

Reformists throughout history had different religions (or no religion).
To link secularism to Christianity is incorrect. Kamal Ataturk was an enlightened reformist who happened to be a Muslim. He pushed for the separation of religion and state when Europe was starting its religious wars (Nazi Germany).
If I am to apply your logic then I should say ‘modern secularism was introduced to Europe by Islamic reformist’.

Peace,

Part 2
The Greeks realised a need of spiritually within their society. They largely influence our culture and thinking.
Throughout you made disparaging references to Western Culture and historical events which cast western civilisation in a poor light.
‘…but rather the contents of international human rights schemes have been attacked as instigated with a cultural imperialist motive by the West.’
‘The history of pre-modern Western civilisation holds an astronomical record of human rights violation’
‘Religious “heretics” were commonly executed in the West and it was only in the 1950s that Harvard Law School began admitting women.’
Consequently, the enlightenment advocated rationality as the only means of establishing an authoritative system for seeking knowledge and truth, divorcing knowledge from revelation.’
Here we are given your truncated version of western philosophy and your criticisms of western culture thereby leading us on a winding path to absurdity. That path continued it’s twisting and turning, while you are correct in your assessment of secularism and it’s resultant negative effect upon HR your inference was secularism in government only results in poor human rights issues in non-Islam societies. I laughed at the following comment ‘The generally assumed position that human rights principles can only be upheld in secular societies is problematic…’ because that position is not generally held at all. It is held by postmodernists.
I laughed even louder and scoffed at your later comparisons. They were completely deceptive and merely designed to support your earlier conclusion. Had you referred to the non-secular Islamic society and government of Iran then your conclusion would have been totally refuted. For Iran doesn’t fit your conclusion. Iran has the worst of all human rights record and it’s government is based in the Islamic ‘fitra’. Iran has as much resemblance to anybody’s notion as natural law as I have a resemblance to Adonis. And really you should have compared it to the ultimate in secular governments; that alleged great ‘Satan’

ps Sometime disparage historical events and attitudes in the development of Islamic society in the ways you are free to disparage those in western development. Start with women’s rights.

Another "it is not Islam's fault" paper by an Islamic "Human Rights" expert, in the West - of course. Yawn.

About Price's paper.

First, the link to the referenced paper at Amazon doesn't work, at least for me.

Second, without a look at the data and what countries are in the sampling, it is hard to comment on the subject.

However, Schumm at KSU writes:
"Daniel Price in his analysis of Islamic Political Culture and Human Rights concluded that "... government rooted in Islam does not facilitate the abuse of human rights." A re-analysis of his data for 23 Islamic governments demonstrates otherwise. There is a significant trend (p<.03), despite the low statistical power available in only 23 cases, for an inverted quadratic relationship between Islamic Political Culture and Human Rights. Among the nations scoring low on Islamic Political Culture, the correlation between the two variables is -.01 (ns); among those scoring high on Islamic Political Culture, the correlation shifts to -.78 (p<.02). At lower scores for Islamic Political Culture, there may indeed be little relationship between Political Culture and Human Rights; however, at higher scores there appears to be a significant relationship between increasing Islamic Political Culture and a decline in Human Rights."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14765607&dopt=Abstract

So, the more Islam, the less Human Rights. Once again, as usual, as always, Muslims are in denial about their faith. Where you find Islam, you find descrimination and oppression.

The fact is that Islamic political culture is less a determining factor in human rights practices than Islamic religious beliefs, which assign a lesser value to Muslim women, and very little value at all to non-Muslims.

Kactuz

Simply put, Universal law encompass all human rights regardless of any other earthly thoughts. In this world we have International Human rights laws, which often reflect the best of the Universal laws yet get diuluted by corrpution and disrespect.Universal law respect all life and recognize that killing with intent is wrong. Harming another with intent is wrong.