The Uneven Response of Islam to Universal Human Rights

**cooterhein** · 06-29-2016

In 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was the first global expression of what rights all human beings are entitled to. It holds the distinction of being the most-translated document in the world, and is understood by many international lawyers as being part of customary international law. It is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations.
Many Islamic countries, most notably Turkey, signed on and praised the document. Saudi Arabia was a notable opponent that offered some harsh criticism. Pakistan would later lodge a formal disagreement with these criticisms. Most African countries at this point were not a part of the UN, so it didn't really apply to them.

Later, in 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam was created. Countries like Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan signed on. It affirmed much of what the Universal Declaration said, but it upheld the inequalities inherent in Islamic law. To clarify, these countries are generally known as bad actors when it comes to human rights, the treatment of women, and religious freedom, but they went out of their way to protect Islam and uphold inequities in the name of Islamic sharia.

You can probably tell where I stand on this, but I want to put this out there for a random group of Muslims to comment on. What do you think of the different options that Islamic countries had available to them? Should they have all gotten on board with the Universal Declaration? Is the Cairo document something that you're sympathetic toward, or do you view it as a mistake, an embarrassment, or something that is used to prop up evil in the name of Islam?

And in general, from you as a Muslim to me as a Christian in the United States, what do you want me to know about either of these documents and about a particular kind of Islamic approach to this sort of issue?

**greenhill** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you all,

It seems so easy to blame others for the problems in the world. If only we could look at each other as being created by the same 'One God', the same God hears all our prayers. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other, despite all our differences.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all of God's creation.

Eric

Love that. Too bad can't give rep points for that because I recently already gave :/

Already said somewhere, where one is a true muslim when one wishes for his neighbours what he would wish for himself.

Ponder on that alone or also reading into it something else; "neighbours"- and it does not differentiate. Christian, muslim, Hindu colour .. nothing. Just neighbours.

Keeping it simple, isn't that the fundamental spirit we should all have? It was formalised with the previous messages, specifically the Torah. Do unto others what you would have others do unto you.

Why does the same simple message need to be repeated again and again? Because of men's innate desire to rebel and have his own laws. But if you did the opposite, then another rule applies; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Revenge. Hence, what was Jesus's real purpose? Apart from following the traditions of the prophets, he enlightened people to a higher spiritual state of being with the concept of 'to turn the other cheek' it brought forgiveness to the table, not just revenge.

How great would that be in the modern world if the true spirit of the messages brought by prophets were actually the laws we were emulating?

Of course we will not have that. Men, more to the point, the powerful will make the law. And the law will be such that will protect their positions. There is no 'worldly' profit to operate God's Law. So they changed it. Because it is all about profits. Almost at any expense. This is definitely not God's world. It is, through media domination, Satan's world.

**kritikvernunft** · 07-01-2016

"neighbours"- and it does not differentiate. Christian, muslim, Hindu colour .. nothing. Just neighbours.

That is Christian doctrine and certainly not Islamic. The correct version is that regardless of what your religion may be, you should not trust Jews nor Christians:

Quran 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Therefore, yes, Hindus should indeed also NOT trust (Jews nor) Christians, since they are specifically mentioned as untrustworthy. Therefore the universal religions rule is: NEVER, EVER trust a Christian. NEVER, EVER make friends with a Christian. Always treat Christians with the total distrust that they deserve. Always remember that Christian religious doctrines are in reality Satanic deceptions.

****************
****************
****************

**sister herb** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by kritikvernunft

That is Christian doctrine and certainly not Islamic. The correct version is that regardless of what your religion may be, you should not trust Jews nor Christians:

Quran 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

You quote one verse from the Quran and then interpret it the way which supports your own arguments and claims. It does not convince anybody here.

**cooterhein** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein; and welcome to the forum,

I am a Catholic, so that makes both of us guests on a Muslim forum, I have found people here to be friendly and helpful over the last eleven years. As Jesus said, we must not ignore the plank in our own eye, whilst we concentrate on the speck in our brother's eye.

Eric

According to the Human Rights Index published by the Cato Institute, seen here http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...index-2015.pdf the US is not all the way at the top of the list in terms of the Freedom Index which averages scores on personal and economic freedom. The US is number 20 on the list, with Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand taking the top spots on this particular list. That's not really impressive for the US, but it is fairly near to the top and hey, good on Mauritius for making it in at number 19 ahead of us. That's the only country in the top 20 that belongs to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation- although I will note that Hinduism claims a plurality in the country with Christianity as the largest minority, with Islam clocking in at just below 20% of the population. Still though, one OIC member is doing well.

With that being said, here's the countries all the way at the bottom of the list. Iran, DRC, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Yemen, CAF, Algeria, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Chad, KSA, Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Togo, Swaziland, Egypt. That's not exclusively Islamic countries, but most of those have a significant Muslim population that is causing some problems. This is how it goes every time you look at any actual, published, recognized and reviewed index or ranking. Evaluations of freedom around the world, of democracy, of human rights, it's all pretty much the same. Aligned Western nations pretty much all at the top, a handful of OIC aligned countries in the middle, and a big consistent cluster of mostly or exclusively Islamic countries at the bottom.

Speck, meet plank.

**cooterhein** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by sister herb

You quote one verse from the Quran and then interpret it the way which supports your own arguments and claims. It does not convince anybody here.

I wish that were true, and I'm glad to see it doesn't convince Everybody here, but I can see it's got a fair amount of traction with some people.

**muslimah_B** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by kritikvernunft

That is Christian doctrine and certainly not Islamic. The correct version is that regardless of what your religion may be, you should not trust Jews nor Christians:

Quran 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Therefore, yes, Hindus should indeed also NOT trust (Jews nor) Christians, since they are specifically mentioned as untrustworthy. Therefore the universal religions rule is: NEVER, EVER trust a Christian. NEVER, EVER make friends with a Christian. Always treat Christians with the total distrust that they deserve. Always remember that Christian religious doctrines are in reality Satanic deceptions.

Since the Quran clarifies that as a matter of exception, you should -- just for this case only -- overrule your natural instinct and NOT believe that Jesus was a deceptive liar, cheat and a fraud. So, yes, I repeat that he was not, no matter how attractive it would be to believe that. You see, there is a reason why we must overrule normal logic in this case, but this reason will only be revealed in the next life. So, all of us must be patient. Ultimately, we will be duly informed as to why Jesus was NOT just a vulgar mafia criminal. He was even a prophet, even though nobody right in his mind would naturally think so. Seriously, there are totally unknown, counter-intuitive, virtually impossible, and otherwise unbelievable reasons why he was a prophet! These virtual impossibilities will be revealed not in this life, but certainly in the next one. It is part of the surprise package for new arrivals in heaven. Some day, we will finally be made to understand why, for heaven's sake why!

You see, the Quran would never deprive victims from the justice that they deserve, or make things even worse, by telling the victims that they should encourage the perpetrator to misbehave again:

Quran 5:45: In the Torah We prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds.

You see, faith in God sometimes means that you should believe the almost unbelievable. Mary was NOT a promiscuous **** whose adultery got her impregnated with a ******* son, who was NOT a liar, a fraud, or a deceptive mafia criminal. This is NOT the case. There is something else in play that explains it all, but this secret information will not be revealed in our current life. You would never be able to figure it out by yourself. Seriously, that would be impossible. However, in the next life, everything will become clear, because there is an absolutely valid explanation for all of that. In the meanwhile, try to remember everything that Jesus and his mother Mary were NOT, even if at first glance it may look like they were.

There is a massive difference between treating your neighbors kindly and with respect to taking them as friends.
When you take someone as a friend you turn to them, ask them for advice, for guidance, you end up being like your friend mirroring their personality, character & faith

Abu Huraira*reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “A man is upon the religion of his best friend, so let one of you look at whom he befriends.”

Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 4833

We dont take as "friends" as they have total different beliefs in place, advice & guidance from someone not a muslim could infact go against islamic values & rules, it does not mean we as muslims look down on other people or we treat others in a horrible manner, NO we still treat everyone with respect, manners and kindness no matter what faith they believe in, they are still humans regardless.

Friends have a large influence over us, and can help us or destroy us.

“And (remember) the Day when the wrong-doer (oppressor, polytheist etc.) will bite on his hand, he will say: ‘Oh! *Would that I had taken a path with the Messenger.* Ah! *Woe to me! *Would that I had never taken so-and-so as a friend! *He indeed led me astray from the Reminder (the Quran) after it had come to me.’” (Quran 25:27)

Im not responding to the last bit of what you wrote tbh i found it rather distasteful, given that your on an islamic forum, more care should be given to be more respectfull towards Isa a.s (jesus a.s) & Maryam p.b.u.h

**greenhill** · 07-01-2016

@kritikvernunft .
I am not sure where you are coming from. Perhaps you should relate my post to the OP and not my quote. Apologies for the quote but it was the quote that inspired me to the train of thoughts. About human rights. What human rights? When all prophets have been preaching to do good. So if we did as told, we'd all be better off.

Nothing territorial about it. About who did what. They all did God's bidding. Our duty is to listen and do.

New thought here, for the OP, amongst the biggest sins, like slander, causing mischief, taking unlawfully other people's property, adultery, is also oppression. Not giving a person his rights tantamounts to oppression.

Allah essentially has always put the rule in place. Only human pretend not to know. Religion is the answer to the world problem. Not the politics.

**sister herb** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Iran, DRC, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Yemen, CAF, Algeria, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Chad, KSA, Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Togo, Swaziland, Egypt.

How many of those countries have enjoyed about the influence of the western humanism in the past (like being under the rule of some western country) and how many of them still are under the political, economical and/or military pressure from the democratic western countries? How many of them have low degree of freedom in the society because of this "influence of humanity" which has been (and still is) the most interesting about their natural resources or their military political position on the map? Maybe here are some other reason to their lack of freedom than only Islam.

**muslimah_B** · 07-01-2016

They only go and "help" when their interests are at stake,

Where is the help for those people and children being forced to work in the mines around Africa in horrible conditions, for minerals, diamonds etc and when they refuse troops are sent in to "keep the peace & help" NO they are told if they dont go in there they will be shot and even in one of these instances the whole "ebola" epademic started when people started rebeling and troops got sent there "to help"
It was a serious "epademic" now where is it now hardly talked about and vanished.

Where is the help for the persecuted muslims in the chinese region of Xinjiang, where they are being force fed during ramadan, beaten, killed, threatend to denounce faith or their family will be killed
Where is the help for those in the bombed regions of the middle east, the starving countries of Africa, those persecuted in Bosnia & Herzegovina, those displaced in Palestine
Where is the help for anyone being persecuted for being a paticular faith when that is part of a human right, only when it comes to muslims do people forget that and throw the "laws" out the window which they claim to uphold

They pick and choose who they want to help, why should any muslim country turn to laws set by people when the people have double standards and do not even follow their own rules for the benifit of people, its only for the benifit of their pockets and their power.
Allahs laws uphold rights for everything humans, animals & nature, not just for muslims but the whole of humanity for the benifit of our souls, not our pockets

**sister herb** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by muslimah_B

They only go and "help" when their interests are at stake,

And also, they only talk about human rights, Universal Human Rights Declaration and Geneva Conventions when it suits to their purposes.

If the human rights would to be the number one for the world politics, why it took so long time before the "western country" in the Africa met it´s end? By this I mean the Apartheid South Africa. Odd, the rulers there were originally Europeans, the Christians and surely they understood the manners of civilization and democracy. And human rights too.

If the human rights would to be number one to every western societies, why an earth the civiliazed and democratic Australia sends the refugees to Nauru and places them to the refugees camps?

Mysterious are those human rights which every democratic countries follow nowadays.

**cooterhein** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by Timi Scar

Can I go and preach in the vatican? NO. What you saying ????

I'm not aware of any law against it, long as you're in a public space. You want to go to Vatican City and try your luck?

Really now?

Coptic Christians still existing in a majority Muslim nation is proof that they are not killed off by the so called "Moozlums" your CNN/FOX keep throwin at us, two of the worlds worst news agencies to date.

Palestinian Arabs are still alive and technically mostly well, does that mean all is well with them? Let's see if you're willing to apply the same logic there. What's going on with your spelling? That's not how Muslim is spelled, and you are one.

the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service - whose motto is "by Deception thou Shalt do War" - but ignore this in lieu of your bias, go on -

It's actually called the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, and the motto is

"Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety." From Proverbs 11.

I'd like to point out that you're a Muslim, I'm a Christian, and you know this. Without really chasing the topic, it seems we've been talking about Jews more tan anything else, even though there aren't any Jews participating in the discussion. Just saying.

Nice back up statement lol, if Muslims wanted the minority Coptics dead, it wouldn't be a problem. Yet - they are alive and kicking.

Trust me, if the Israeli military did everything it could, every Palestinian Arab would be dead or gone inside a week. It would be even less of a problem than it is in your Egypt example.

Kindly apply the same logic sir, what does this tell us?

Ever been to Egypt? Ever met a Coptic?

I have not been to Egypt, but I have met a Coptic.

May I now turn the tables and show you how the very West you claim is all about Human Rights carpet bombed Iraq

This is a careless use of some specific terminology, as addressed here by a US general in Iraq in comments pertaining to the equally careless rhetoric of Ted Cruz.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...islamic-state/

There surely is plenty of valid criticism of US foreign policy decisions in Iraq and in the region, but you led with this little mistake. I bet you really like repeating this in exactly these terms, and you might even know it's false but you can't be bothered to make any adjustments.

I do not bend my personality to your will, neither do I ask you to bend yours to mine - if you cannot stomach the heat, get out of the kitchen.

You say this here, but you also make certain demands of me while refusing to concede anything yourself.

I like it hot.

You do have some incredibly obvious limits, and it's generally a bad idea to advertise yourself as a bull in a china shop when you are in so many ways made of glass. One name, two letters, and you lose your mind. That's just one example. You want me to have an ounce of respect for your feelings and sensibilities, you find a way to get yourself under control. You do have buttons that you don't enjoy having pushed, so don't invite something that you truly don't want.

The Saudi Royal Family are absolute pawns for the west, of course you'd say that. The tyranny the subject the Muslims to in their underground torture chambers is something you obviously know nothing about.

In general, what would be different about Saudi foreign policy if they were doing things according to your preferences?

As for you having no respect for the Wahhabi's - you're hatred is misplaced, but what can I expect from a pawn for the west?

I would be interested to know why you think the teachings of Wahhabism and the person who originated it are misunderstood. Do you disagree with the assertion that Daesh uses him as their most direct inspiration, and that they're re-enacting much of what he also did?

So you've gone from unreliable news agencies to movies now? dude, what drugs are you on?

Documentaries, actually. And how are you with comparatives, by the way?

Your lack of respect will not be tolerated again, and ban hammers will be dished out - be careful where you tread...

You said you like it hot, but I knew you didn't really mean that. You demand respect and you have threats to go with those demands, but you have none to give. Whatever is wrong with you is no small thing, and I don't care about your tolerance.

All the Prophets from Adam to Muhammad with Jesus included were Muslims

I think you know who the first Muslim really was. Is it really this common for Muslims to want to kill all the Jews and then co-opt their history as if it belongs to them? Is that the master plan?

And for now, this seems like a good place for me to stop.

**greenhill** · 07-01-2016

What you are saying @muslimah_B in parts is what kritikvernunft quoted but wrongly understood. These are the Judeo-Christian alliances we are warned against.

But... nothing wrong with being good on an individual level.

**sister herb** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Palestinian Arabs are still alive and technically mostly well, does that mean all is well with them?

After many massacres, living under the over 60 years occupation, daily humiliations, massive military invasions, destroying their homes and fields, torturing prisoners, killing children etc, technically they are mostly well? But no problems, all the news and human rights reports about their situation must to be false because the western countries, whose have invented the Universal Human Rights Declarations support them.

I am wondering what it´s meaning to be technically well. You have broken your both legs but technically you feel well?

Believe me, if the west really would follow their own teachings about the human rights, freedom and democracy, there wouldn´t been this ongoing conflict and occupation in the land of Palestine. I am wondering why the west demands others to follow the human rights but it itself doesn´t follow them.

**muslimah_B** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by greenhill

What you are saying @muslimah_B in parts is what kritikvernunft quoted but wrongly understood. These are the Judeo-Christian alliances we are warned against.

But... nothing wrong with being good on an individual level.

i did say that no matter who they are to be kind and good mannerd and treat them properly etc but it is best to avoid friendships on a level as such that you seek or take advice from them especially spiritual matters , as generally more time their advice goes against islamic values and beliefs, there are stronger opinions where there is no friendship allowed at all unless it is of benificial purposes
Another issue is that, SOME hate our prophets and insult them including certain aspects of Islam and being "friends" with them can take a toll on your emaan and may put doubt in your faith
Its best to avoid for certain reasons but ofcourse be courteous, polite, friendly etc

Here it explains it better

https://islamqa.info/en/59879

**cooterhein** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by sister herb

After many massacres, living under the over 60 years occupation, daily humiliations, massive military invasions, destroying their homes and fields, torturing prisoners, killing children etc, technically they are mostly well? But no problems, all the news and human rights reports about their situation must to be false because the western countries, whose have invented the Universal Human Rights Declarations support them.

I am wondering what it´s meaning to be technically well. You have broken your both legs but technically you feel well?

Believe me, if the west really would follow their own teachings about the human rights, freedom and democracy, there wouldn´t been this ongoing conflict and occupation in the land of Palestine. I am wondering why the west demands others to follow the human rights but it itself doesn´t follow them.

I think you're missing the larger point, I was not actually suggesting that the Palestinians are in fact fine. This was a little bit of a jab in response to the assertion that Coptic Christians still exist in Egypt after all these years so you see, all is well and they are just fine.

That was the larger point- that the mere continuing existence of a people-group does not always mean everything is fine. And in Egypt, the Christian minority is not fine. Yes they still exist, but that by itself doesn't mean a whole lot.

I will point out one other thing. You do realize that when Israel is assessed in terms of human rights and freedoms, it falls pretty well short of getting a perfect score, right? The shortcomings that you're pointing out are known, they are acknowledged, and it shows up in whatever they're being scored on. It's actually not a pass/fail kind of thing, it's more of a situation where different measures of multiple factors go into a composite score, usually from one to ten. Israel is not really close to a top score in anything.

It is, however, far and away the best thing going in the region. Its neighbors are just awful, the worst of the worst.

**cooterhein** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by muslimah_B

i did say that no matter who they are to be kind and good mannerd and treat them properly etc but it is best to avoid friendships on a level as such that you seek or take advice from them especially spiritual matters , as generally more time their advice goes against islamic values and beliefs, there are stronger opinions where there is no friendship allowed at all unless it is of benificial purposes
Another issue is that, SOME hate our prophets and insult them including certain aspects of Islam and being "friends" with them can take a toll on your emaan and may put doubt in your faith
Its best to avoid for certain reasons but ofcourse be courteous, polite, friendly etc

Here it explains it better

https://islamqa.info/en/59879

I understand this is some sort of deeply held religious belief for you personally, and it may be that in a Muslim-dominated country it works out better for Muslims than it does for whatever minority group you're avoiding. But when you are the minority in the country where you live, it's a good idea to be more pragmatic. This won't lead to a good outcome for you.

**Futuwwa** · 07-01-2016

Word of advice, cooterhein. If you intend to preach to Muslims about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, either stay far clear of Israel, or recognize it for the human rights violator it is, without making excuses for it. Here's some of what that vaunted declaration says:

Article 9:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 13:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Israel is in violation by having, since 1948, consistently refused to let 5 million Palestinian refugees return to their homes on Israeli-controlled territory from which they were displaced by the 1948 war. Article 13 is quoted in case you thought of invoking the usual red herring in the matter about the refugees having left of their own accord. This makes Israel one of the world's worst human rights violators. Few countries have engaged in ethnic cleansing on that scale, most modern dictatorships' human rights violations consist mainly of the suppression of dissent.

Since you apparently made a good-faith attempt at dialogue at first, I shall answer your question, despite your sanctimonious and condescending attitude. I would accept coexistence on the basis of universal compliance with the UDHR. That means, too, that all Muslims must be effectively afforded those rights by every state and polity, and that any polity that does not comply must be forced to do so by any means necessary. This includes, but is far from limited to, Israel's violation of Palestinian rights. How about it?

**muslimah_B** · 07-01-2016

Originally Posted by cooterhein

I understand this is some sort of deeply held religious belief for you personally, and it may be that in a Muslim-dominated country it works out better for Muslims than it does for whatever minority group you're avoiding. But when you are the minority in the country where you live, it's a good idea to be more pragmatic. This won't lead to a good outcome for you.

Im not avoiding them, i just choose to not take them as "personal friends" who i ask for advice or guidance on spiritual matters or islamic issues or questions i may have.
Im friendly with everyone just not literal friends, many of my school friends where christians, hindus, jewish,etc im no longer "friends" with them in that sense but i am friendly and civil, i just dont take them as a friend on the level that you view "friendships" as. I would view them more as acquaintances if that makes it easier to understand.

I dont take the calling of "friends" lightly a friend to me is my companion who wishes the best for me in this life and the next, will make dua for me without me even knowing, and will remind me of Allah when i need it, will help my emaan rise when it is low 《 this is my definition of a friend.

Its just like, your a Christian (i think ?) and in certain aspects we differ in religious values/rules/laws you wouldnt go to a muslim or a jew or a hindu or a budhist or a atheist and seek advice on a spiritual matter that is close to your heart would you ? You would go to someone who shares the same religious values as you

^^^ this is all i mean by this

Me just leaving my house doesnt end up good for me lol I dont think you understand what it is actually like to be a muslim woman who covers for the sake of Allah (God) - no matter how nice we are to people or we try to just go on about our day to day lives, people will always have something to say i have been attacked, abused verbally & physically, i have had men try to attack me in crowded areas and no-one came to help me, i have had things thrown at me, been called every name under the sun,

Like honestly you speak about human rights, so where is my right to dress how i want, what right do people have to tell me not to cover or to worship my Lord how i have to, why is it that when it comes to those rights of mine they are questioned as to wether i should even be allowed to do this
Is this not part of the human rights your talking about, which we are all entitled to especially in the west

You dont seem like a stupid person, but your putting in too much value into a notion that doesnt even uphold its values or laws in the countries where these laws are meant to have the most meaning being in the west where its prided on its human rights, well those rights seem to only cater to a selected few

And even speaking of human rights which where established & set in stone during Islam through the last sermon of prophet mohammed s.a.w
Womens rights were also established and even animal rights

Now lets look at today no set in stone rights for animals anywhere, people are allowed to torture, maim, kill, hunt for sport, test on them all absolutely forbidden in Islam and have serious consequences.
Womens rights - now we have feminists forming groups due to mens desires & man made laws making women feel like dirt & slaves, also has serious consequences and can be a form of oppression.
All of these rights, every single right for everything was established and set in stone in islam and via the sharia
Allahs rules/laws are there for a reason, once people moved away from following these laws this is what we have in the world today, no country follows these as it should be.

Islam has all the answers to everything, muslims do not
When you want to look at islam look at the Quran and sunnah not the muslims

**Search** · 07-01-2016

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Before I begin critiquing your post, I'd like to give you a background on myself: I have been both an atheist at one point in time and now am a Muslim. While I am happy to be an American, I'm very aware of the history of world, because I love both history and anthropology and law and am not ignorant of excesses that have been perpetrated by the First World.

I have some major problems with your premises because you seem to begin with a number of assumptions in your underlying thoughts. First, you are assuming that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is and should be desirable for all cultures equally. Well, let me inform you that the American Anthropological Association (AAA) disagrees with you on this itself as the document has been critiqued for undermining and ignoring cultural differences that exist between societies and parts of the world. I'd even go so far as to say that the document is imperialistic as it seems to follow the train of thought that inspired Rudyard Kipling to author "The White Man's Burden."

Secondly, the document's most notable critique is that it is a meaningless discourse as rights of human beings are uniquely the creation of positive law and unenforceable until they are both legislated and implemented. This is something that I think you even mention in your later post but it is something to be noted because engaging in meaningless discourse is a feel-good exercise but has little or no bearing on how to solve the inequities and injustices that happen across the globe.

Thirdly, you also seem to give the impression that you believe that the countries that signed onto the Declaration are both better in their morality and true winners of the enshrined points of the Declaration. Yet we know that is not true. Key items of the document, for example, include no torture, unfair detainment, right to trial, innocent until proven guilty. And yet in America we've had both the scandal of Guantanamo Bay detention camp and also witnessed the assassination of both U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16-year old son. Many of the First World countries that specifically championed the "no slavery" point fare no better in destroying human trafficking recorded in Amnesty International articles or even U.S.'s National Criminal Justice Service Reference.

Fourthly, Article 3 holds basically that everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and security, and yet "U.S. Dropped 23,144 Bombs on Muslim-Majority Countries in 2015." This basically reminds me of what is said in the Quran to nations that pose falsely as peace-makers yet are part of the problem: "And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers" (Quran 2:11).

Fifthly, I have been a vociferous critic of Daesh and their like-minded cohorts and loathe their very existence but at least they do not pretend to be something they're not; they do not say they care about human life and then do that which would signify the opposite. I'd also invite you to read "The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire" because you'll get a clearer and grayer picture than the media lets on how we operate in the world, and it is not a pretty picture.

Since I have not read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, I will refrain from commenting on that. However, I'd say that none of the Muslim-majority countries today are a bastion of goodness or even represent Islam. While I consider Islam the highest form of egalitarian and practical system of life that when lived in its best form represents the highest good, Muslim-majority countries have largely failed in this area. What is most notable to me is that early Christians and Jews used to be all praise for early Muslims and masses of them converted simply out of seeing the high character represented in Muslims, yet today the opposite is true as Daesh and people of their ilk like Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc. have literally hijacked the conversation on Islam and are literally and figuratively driving away non-Muslims people from Islam. It is the biggest tragedy of our time that much of what remains now of "Islam" is the name and its calligraphy but without the accompanying spiritual reality and teeth of character that would inspire and invite non-Muslims to look into Islam as a curious and unbiased human being.

I don't know that there is a uniform Islamic approach, but I'd say that I'd like to leave you with one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him): "There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm" (Ibn Majah) and "Be merciful to the people of the earth and the One above the heavens will have mercy upon you" (Sunan al-Tirmidhī). If people all over the world just followed this two hadiths (prophetic traditions), I'd say we'd have no wars, no Daesh, no terrorists, no evil, because all that would remain between any human being is mercy. My sheikh (Islamic teacher) (may Allah bless him) had a student in a recently delivered lecture said that God does not like vengeance but has given it as a last resort and expression of making right a wrong but that there would never have been any need of this should all human beings treat one another with mercy which is what God has wished and wanted for all human beings since God Himself is Most Merciful to us and overlooks our mistakes and sins all the time. That's what I'd want you to know as a Christian in the United States from myself as a Muslim.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

In 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was the first global expression of what rights all human beings are entitled to. It holds the distinction of being the most-translated document in the world, and is understood by many international lawyers as being part of customary international law. It is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations.
Many Islamic countries, most notably Turkey, signed on and praised the document. Saudi Arabia was a notable opponent that offered some harsh criticism. Pakistan would later lodge a formal disagreement with these criticisms. Most African countries at this point were not a part of the UN, so it didn't really apply to them.

Later, in 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam was created. Countries like Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan signed on. It affirmed much of what the Universal Declaration said, but it upheld the inequalities inherent in Islamic law. To clarify, these countries are generally known as bad actors when it comes to human rights, the treatment of women, and religious freedom, but they went out of their way to protect Islam and uphold inequities in the name of Islamic sharia.

You can probably tell where I stand on this, but I want to put this out there for a random group of Muslims to comment on. What do you think of the different options that Islamic countries had available to them? Should they have all gotten on board with the Universal Declaration? Is the Cairo document something that you're sympathetic toward, or do you view it as a mistake, an embarrassment, or something that is used to prop up evil in the name of Islam?

And in general, from you as a Muslim to me as a Christian in the United States, what do you want me to know about either of these documents and about a particular kind of Islamic approach to this sort of issue?

**Scimitar** · 07-02-2016

Originally Posted by cooterhein

I'm not aware of any law against it, long as you're in a public space. You want to go to Vatican City and try your luck?

Not inside the Vatican I cannot... see, what you fail to factor in is that The Hijaaz - the sancitifed areas for Muslims is just like the inner walls of the Vatican, no reaching of another faith allowed, you seem to want to impose a double standard which is really quite embarrassing for you.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Palestinian Arabs are still alive and technically mostly well, does that mean all is well with them? Let's see if you're willing to apply the same logic there. What's going on with your spelling? That's not how Muslim is spelled, and you are one.

Palestinians live in a concentration camp type environment - among them are Christians not just Muslims, didn't you know - whereas the Coptic of Egypt LIVE ALONGSIDE THE MUSLIMS - you're ignorance is astounding.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

It's actually called the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, and the motto is

Originally Posted by cooterhein

"Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety." From Proverbs 11.

What nonsense you spill. read again: MOSSAD, is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, it's even in your favourite source for info, wikipedia, it is the former motto, and whether you state it's 'lack of counsel' or 'deception' as the translation, the English translation of 'deception' has been used as the title of a book, as used by a former Mossad agent, to validate the understood meaning of the motto by a former Mossad agent, himself, who published the book detailing such deceptions. Since then this has been the prefered translated narrative which occupied the hearts of the Israeli war machine.

Even your own source of internet knowledge which I scoff at has the beans on it - wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception - you have no leg to stand when your own source contradicts itself. And this motto is world wide, tattooed on the backs, chests and arms of the MOSSAD soldiers who choose to have it. I refer to it as the mark of the beast lol. You are so uninformed it's actually ridiculous.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

I'd like to point out that you're a Muslim, I'm a Christian, and you know this. Without really chasing the topic, it seems we've been talking about Jews more tan anything else, even though there aren't any Jews participating in the discussion. Just saying.

Does this mean we just conveniently leave them out, because it makes you uncomfortable? Are you a zionist?

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Trust me, if the Israeli military did everything it could, every Palestinian Arab would be dead or gone inside a week. It would be even less of a problem than it is in your Egypt example.

And 1.8 billion Muslims would go ape all over the world - Israel wouldn't stand a chance.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Kindly apply the same logic sir, what does this tell us?

This is rich, coming from you lol, you have no logic - just a badly conditioned bias.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

I have not been to Egypt, but I have met a Coptic.

That's your be all and end all? one coptic? What did he or she tell you? IN the united states of America? IN English, lol. Were they on holiday? Oh wait - they were? did the Egyptians allow that one coptic to travel freely? allow them to apply for a visa to the States? Are you thinking straight? Can Palestinians apply for Visa's to the United States? DO Palestinians even have valid passports?

You speak of logic and bring me this crap?

Grow a brain, fast - you're making me waste my time. I was expecting some intelligent discussion but the flouride in your water has taken that from you.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

This is a careless use of some specific terminology, as addressed here by a US general in Iraq in comments pertaining to the equally careless rhetoric of Ted Cruz.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/02/01/from-iraq-general-rebukes-ted-cruzs-plan-to-carpet-bomb-the-islamic-state/

There surely is plenty of valid criticism of US foreign policy decisions in Iraq and in the region, but you led with this little mistake. I bet you really like repeating this in exactly these terms, and you might even know it's false but you can't be bothered to make any adjustments.

Washington Post? really? Did you even watch the news when it was going down - because the whole world did and what you are driving is lies born of a badly formed bias in order to foment yet more brain dead Americans who can't even tell Australis from Iraq on a world map. Want proof? I can show you proof.

The next gen won't know their ass from their elbow.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

You do have some incredibly obvious limits...[/snip]

After what I just watched above, and what I've read from you, this is ironically very funny and rich.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

In general, what would be different about Saudi foreign policy if they were doing things according to your preferences?

Adhere to Qur'an and Sunnah and not bow to the financiers (cue the USA) of their filthy rich and opulent lifestyle by which the rich/poor divide is so bad in the KSA is so bad, it's broken. Tha's what

Originally Posted by cooterhein

I would be interested to know why you think the teachings of Wahhabism and the person who originated it are misunderstood. Do you disagree with the assertion that Daesh uses him as their most direct inspiration, and that they're re-enacting much of what he also did?

You asked two questions:

1) the Wahhabi's were a tribe, and not a sect when the Saud promised them the khalifa in Arabia under the lies Hempher told the Sauds to offer the Wahhab tribe.

2) The Wahhabi scholars have all denounced ISIS and so your point is mute. ISIS take the understanding of the Wahhabi's waaay out of any reasonable context - another example of "By deception thou shalt do war"

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Documentaries, actually. And how are you with comparatives, by the way?

Documentaries? Oh so you actually like to admit you like to be indoctrinated and dare to ask me how I am with comparatives? TRY ME AND FIND OUT

Originally Posted by cooterhein

You said you like it hot, but I knew you didn't really mean that. You demand respect and you have threats to go with those demands, but you have none to give. Whatever is wrong with you is no small thing, and I don't care about your tolerance.

I love it hot - I love to expose bad logic and bias for what it is - you no like? leave the kitchen... but not before I get my popcorn and have my fill.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

I think you know who the first Muslim really was.

Adam pbuh the first man was the first Muslim. Ask any of us here... they will say the same thing. What you allude to is sheer bias stemming from your indoctrinated and mindless bias as an American Christian. Quite the polarised one at that - typical if I may say so myself.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Is it really this common for Muslims to want to kill all the Jews and then co-opt their history as if it belongs to them? Is that the master plan?

What nonsense are you throwing here? You plum, may I remind you are responding to this comment:

Originally Posted by I, myself

All the Prophets from Adam to Muhammad with Jesus included were Muslims

and this is what you ask?

Originally Posted by cooterhein

Is it really this common for Muslims to want to kill all the Jews and then co-opt their history as if it belongs to them? Is that the master plan?

You fool.

Where did any Muslim express their want to kill a Jew anywhere in this thread - why are you such a liar - is this your inner Mossad leaking with your BY Decpetion thou Shalt Do War now? Get a grip. I've had better conversations with morons. But you take the P out of the your own faculty of reason, logic and context, what an embarrassment you are making of yourself.

Originally Posted by cooterhein

And for now, this seems like a good place for me to stop.

LOL, bro, you'd do well to stop altogether at this point, how much more embarrassment will you put yourself through though... this I cannot wait to see.

Scimi