Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

No Contradictions between Islam and human rights?

Discussion in 'Habari na Hoja mchanganyiko' started by Rich Dad, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. Rich Dad

    Rich Dad JF-Expert Member

    Aug 15, 2011
    Joined: Dec 15, 2010
    Messages: 742
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Believe you, me, there are a whole lot of contradictions between Islam
    and human rights – whatever the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin
    Believe you, me, there are a whole lot of contradictions between Islam
    and human rights – whatever the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin
    Ebadi may say and regardless of how many years she has worked for
    reforms. Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against Shirin Ebadi and I
    like reforms a whole lot, thank you very much. But for a woman – let
    alone a 'human rights activist' - to say that there is no
    contradiction between Islam and human rights is like a black South
    African saying there is no contradiction between Apartheid and human
    rights. Islam is synonymous with sexual apartheid and its first
    victims are women and girls.

    This is not just insider knowledge for those of us who have lived
    under Islamic rule but general knowledge. Islam and human rights are a
    contradiction in terms. In fact, Shirin Ebadi herself lives with these
    contradictions – appearing at a press conference unveiled, defending
    secularism and the separation of state and religion, and more recently
    calling for the abolition of stoning and amputation – realities that
    are part and parcel of Islam and Islamic states.

    I know that Ms. Ebadi and her Islamic feminist (an oxymoron)
    colleagues have said and will say that violations of human rights in
    the name of Islam are not Islam but one need only flip through the
    pages of the Koran, Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence to see ample
    evidence otherwise. Ms. Ebadi might actually be able to persuade us of
    Islam's harmony with human rights if we all had historical amnesia and
    were living, say, in a future where Islamic laws and political Islam
    had been eradicated.

    But she can't really truly persuade us of such when we see and hear
    otherwise every single day. If that were not the case, there would be
    no need for Ebadi and her colleagues to reiterate that it is but a
    question of the mis- interpretation of Islam. If that's all, then
    maybe after Islam's re-interpretation, we could go back and see
    whether with a little bit of interpretation, blacks, Jews, Communists
    and so on could have had their human rights respected under Apartheid
    or Nazi Germany.

    Are we really supposed to believe that a little bit of interpretation
    is all that's needed to end misogyny in Islam? Clearly, the question
    of re-interpretation of reaction only comes up for those who believe
    in something and want to superficially pull and tug at it and excuse
    and justify it to fit into the 21st century. Well I'm sorry but no can
    do. As an aside, it seems even the Nobel Prize Committee has had some
    debates on this since its use of the term human rights in describing
    Ebadi's work is always preceded with the adjectives 'fundamental' or
    'vital'. I suppose the rights to choose one's clothing, have sex with
    whomever one wants, travel without a male guardian, one's sexuality,
    divorce and child custody and so on are not so 'fundamental' and
    'vital' to that Committee. But since a lot of other human rights
    violations persist in the arena considered 'vital' even by the
    Committee, reform of Islam is their and Ebadi's response to them.

    The Nobel Peace Prize has thus been awarded to Ebadi who represents
    'Reformed Islam' as if such a thing is possible. Even when De Klerk
    won the 1993 Prize with Nelson Mandela, it wasn't for 'reformed'
    Apartheid but for the termination of the Apartheid regime because
    Apartheid's supporters (including many of the western governments that
    support sexual apartheid in Iran today) were made to understand by the
    likes of the ANC and international public opinion that Apartheid
    couldn't be reformed, wouldn't be accepted or tolerated and had to be
    terminated. The same is true of Islamic laws and states, political
    Islam and sexual Apartheid.

    I suppose it could have been a lot worse. Khatami or the Pope could
    have received the Prize. Ebadi has after all done a lot of good work
    and begun to use her influence to call for the release of political
    prisoners and an end to amputations and stonings. She has the
    responsibility, however, to do much more - not as a representative of
    'Reformed Islam' but of the women and people of Iran.

    A word to Shirin Ebadi: Khatami hopes that you 'who come from a
    religious family and [have] expressed [your] love for Islam, will pay
    attention to the interests of the Islamic world and of Iran…' I, on
    the other hand, 'hope' that you will pay attention to the interests of
    human beings and their full human rights. Of course, this would mean
    leaving the ranks of Islamic 'feminism' and 'Reformism'. And of course
    this would mean joining the equality seeking and liberation movement
    in Iran, which won't accept or tolerate sexual Apartheid and is
    demanding the termination of not just Islamic punishments but all
    Islamic laws and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    This article was first published in WPI Briefing 119 dated October 20,
    2003. For more details on misogyny in Islam, see article entitled:
    Islam, Political Islam and Women in the Middle East, March 18, 2002 on
  2. K

    Karry JF-Expert Member

    Aug 15, 2011
    Joined: Mar 26, 2011
    Messages: 266
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 33
    ok naendelea na uchambuzi