Stoned_Rider
20 Oct 2006, 12:37 PM
The Islamic Human Rights Commission in the UK is holding an annual Islamophobia Awards (http://www.ihrc.org.uk/islamophobia/). They define Islamophobia as "A contemporary and emerging form of prejudice Islamophobia can be described as stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia leads to viewing Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level and perceiving their views to be intrinsically problematic, violent or unethical."
The IHRC also defines its aims & objectives as follows:
The aims of the Islamic Human Rights Commission are:
1. To champion the rights & duties revealed for human beings.
2. To promote a new social & international order, based on truth, justice,
righteousness & generosity, rather than selfish interest.
3. To demand virtue & oppose wrongdoing in the exercise of power (from
whatever base that power derives - e.g. political, judicial, media,
economic, military, personal, etc.).
4. To gather information about, & to publicise, atrocities, oppression,
discrimination, & other abuses of divinely-granted rights.
5. To campaign for redress, & to support the victims, of such crimes.
6. To campaign to bring the perpetrators & their accomplices to justice.
7. To cooperate with other groups & individuals where such cooperation is
likely to further the achievement of these aims.
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=212&nd=1
Very nice, I thought! This sounds like a proper moderate Islamic organisation that promotes the modern values of Human Rights.
I went through the list of nominees, unsurprised to see the usual suspects like Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, George W Bush etc.. However, a lot of the nominations struck me as odd. Especially:
King Mohammed VI of Morocco For his 'so called reforms' aimed at removing Islam from the the Moroccan people.
WTF? Mohammed VI is considered a model peaceful and moderate Muslim. He encourages a tolerant and modern interpretation of the Quran and strongly denounces terrorism and Sharia. Such a nomination only proves what I've been saying all along. If Mohammed VI is considered an Islamophobe, it proves that there is absolutely no room in Islam for "moderates". You either follow Islam, or you don't. A "moderate" Muslim is not a "good" Muslim. When will the world wake up to this simple and obvious fact? I have no fucking clue!
The reforms that the Islamic Human Rights Commission in the UK are so angry about included a new family code that banned polygamy and afforded the Moroccan woman much more rights than women in any other Islamic country:
The wife is no longer legally obliged to obey her husband;
The adult woman is entitled to self-guardianship, rather than that of a male family member, and may exercise it freely and independently;
The right to divorce is a prerogative of both men and women, exercised under judicial supervision;
Polygamy is subject to the judge?s authorization and to stringent legal conditions, making the practice nearly impossible;
The woman has the right to impose a condition in the marriage contract requiring that her husband refrain from taking other wives;
http://www.learningpartnership.org/advocacy/alerts/morocco0204
This should speak volumes about what the Islamic notion of Human Rights is, to anyone with a little bit common sense. Here are some more clues:
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic counterpart of and a response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects, most notably in that the former unambiguously recognizes only those human rights that are in accordance with Sharia.[2] Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." The role of Islamic law as a sole source of legal opinion is confirmed by the Article 25, which asserts that "The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration". The CDHR underscores its basis in Islam as the "true religion" and in the way of life of the Muslim society ? Ummah, which is described as the best community and as playing a "civilizing and historical role".
Almost always where the CDHRI refers to human rights, it makes a qualification that those rights must be exercised in accordance with Sharia. Thus, Article 22 restricts freedom of speech to those expressions of it that are not in contravention of the Islamic law: "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia." Similarly, the right to hold public office is contingent upon such right being in accordance with Sharia.[2]
The CDHRI has been criticized for falling short of the international human rights standards by not upholding the fundamentality of freedom of religion.[3] Article 5 prohibits to impose any restrictions on marriage stemming from "race, colour or nationality", notably excluding religion from the list, so that men and women may be prevented from marrying on the basis of their religion.
Similarly, CDHRI is criticized as not endorsing equality between men and women; moreover, it is accused of affirming the superiority of men.[4] In the Article 6, women are guaranteed equal dignity, but not equality in other matters. The article also puts upon the husband the responsibility to maintain welfare of the family, while no similar obligation is placed upon the wife.
Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticized the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus, on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
The IHRC also defines its aims & objectives as follows:
The aims of the Islamic Human Rights Commission are:
1. To champion the rights & duties revealed for human beings.
2. To promote a new social & international order, based on truth, justice,
righteousness & generosity, rather than selfish interest.
3. To demand virtue & oppose wrongdoing in the exercise of power (from
whatever base that power derives - e.g. political, judicial, media,
economic, military, personal, etc.).
4. To gather information about, & to publicise, atrocities, oppression,
discrimination, & other abuses of divinely-granted rights.
5. To campaign for redress, & to support the victims, of such crimes.
6. To campaign to bring the perpetrators & their accomplices to justice.
7. To cooperate with other groups & individuals where such cooperation is
likely to further the achievement of these aims.
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=212&nd=1
Very nice, I thought! This sounds like a proper moderate Islamic organisation that promotes the modern values of Human Rights.
I went through the list of nominees, unsurprised to see the usual suspects like Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, George W Bush etc.. However, a lot of the nominations struck me as odd. Especially:
King Mohammed VI of Morocco For his 'so called reforms' aimed at removing Islam from the the Moroccan people.
WTF? Mohammed VI is considered a model peaceful and moderate Muslim. He encourages a tolerant and modern interpretation of the Quran and strongly denounces terrorism and Sharia. Such a nomination only proves what I've been saying all along. If Mohammed VI is considered an Islamophobe, it proves that there is absolutely no room in Islam for "moderates". You either follow Islam, or you don't. A "moderate" Muslim is not a "good" Muslim. When will the world wake up to this simple and obvious fact? I have no fucking clue!
The reforms that the Islamic Human Rights Commission in the UK are so angry about included a new family code that banned polygamy and afforded the Moroccan woman much more rights than women in any other Islamic country:
The wife is no longer legally obliged to obey her husband;
The adult woman is entitled to self-guardianship, rather than that of a male family member, and may exercise it freely and independently;
The right to divorce is a prerogative of both men and women, exercised under judicial supervision;
Polygamy is subject to the judge?s authorization and to stringent legal conditions, making the practice nearly impossible;
The woman has the right to impose a condition in the marriage contract requiring that her husband refrain from taking other wives;
http://www.learningpartnership.org/advocacy/alerts/morocco0204
This should speak volumes about what the Islamic notion of Human Rights is, to anyone with a little bit common sense. Here are some more clues:
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic counterpart of and a response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects, most notably in that the former unambiguously recognizes only those human rights that are in accordance with Sharia.[2] Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." The role of Islamic law as a sole source of legal opinion is confirmed by the Article 25, which asserts that "The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration". The CDHR underscores its basis in Islam as the "true religion" and in the way of life of the Muslim society ? Ummah, which is described as the best community and as playing a "civilizing and historical role".
Almost always where the CDHRI refers to human rights, it makes a qualification that those rights must be exercised in accordance with Sharia. Thus, Article 22 restricts freedom of speech to those expressions of it that are not in contravention of the Islamic law: "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia." Similarly, the right to hold public office is contingent upon such right being in accordance with Sharia.[2]
The CDHRI has been criticized for falling short of the international human rights standards by not upholding the fundamentality of freedom of religion.[3] Article 5 prohibits to impose any restrictions on marriage stemming from "race, colour or nationality", notably excluding religion from the list, so that men and women may be prevented from marrying on the basis of their religion.
Similarly, CDHRI is criticized as not endorsing equality between men and women; moreover, it is accused of affirming the superiority of men.[4] In the Article 6, women are guaranteed equal dignity, but not equality in other matters. The article also puts upon the husband the responsibility to maintain welfare of the family, while no similar obligation is placed upon the wife.
Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticized the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus, on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_of_Human_Rights