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.