A Current Human Rights Issue in the Middle East - Essay Example

The Conflict between Islamic Law and International Human Rights Law: A Contemporary Human Rights Issue in the Middle East Introduction In Middle Eastern countries, especially among Muslim states, there has been an intense but varied reaction to the principles of human rights law. The conception of human rights has generally been about Islam, revealing that Islam is a crucial force influencing the openness of Middle Eastern peoples to human rights principles. Islam was a deep-seated cultural aspect of the Middle East. During the complex and painful process of modernization to which every Middle Eastern country has gone through, traditional Middle Eastern cultures have been going through massive changes that have influenced those cultures and their Islamic traditions (Mayer, 1991, p. 1). However, despite the influence of modernization, Islam remained powerful. International human rights, one of the components of modernity, have penetrated the Middle East at a period when established Islam is being disputed by new ideas of Islamic principles. These new ideas hold the changing hopes and outlooks of Islam’s devotees, which involves desires for higher freedom. The progress of modernization has intensified Muslim’s hatred of tyrannical, oppressive, and capricious regimes of their nations and has promoted the emergence of movements campaigning for greater freedom and human rights (Mayer, 1991, pp. 1-2). This essay discusses the conflict between Sharia (Islamic) law and international human rights law in the Middle East, with references to current cases of human rights issues in Middle Eastern countries. An Overview of the Conflict between Sharia Law and International Human Rights Law in the Middle East There is a sharp disagreement between the judgments of Islamic human rights scholars and Islamic governments. Islamic scholars could be generally classified into two groups, namely, liberal and conservative. The liberals accept the conflict between human rights ideals and Islamic doctrine and pursuit of reconciliation. In contrast, the conservatives believe that Islam has an independent and unique set of obligations, rights, and practices, and thus, they oppose the intrusion of external human rights law processes (Shah, 2006, p. 3). Generally, Islamic societies conform to the conservative view of Islamic doctrine and this is the reason most Islamic societies have resisted the imposition of international human rights law in their local administrations. Saudi Arabia and Iran are excellent examples (Baderin, 2008). There are Islamic countries that have approved international human rights principles but with major restrictions, declaring that international human rights law would be applied locally provided that it does not run counter to the Sharia law. The Islamic countries also believe that Islam is not only a religion but also a ‘constitution’ that comprises its standards of international law called ‘sitar’ (Shah, 2006, p. 3). Islamic law, according to the Muslims, is divine, and thus it has to be respected as a law superior to all laws made by humankind. Hence, every time there is a tension between international law and the Islamic doctrine, Muslims tend to conform to their religious system. Several Islamic scholars support the framework of implementing international human rights law in Islamic countries. They believe that Islamic law is compatible with human rights principles. Afshari (1994), for instance, supports rigid compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (as cited in Shah, 2006, p. 3). Several local human rights groups in the Middle East also conform to this framework, supporting obedience to international human rights principles. However, this framework has several weaknesses. Above all, a superficial analysis of Islamic law in numerous Islamic societies would reveal several evident disagreements between international human rights principles and the Islamic doctrine, and bringing these two opposing entities together is impossible. Two perfect examples are the ‘unequal treatment of minorities and discriminatory laws of personal status’ (Baderin, 2008, p. 463). Another weakness of this framework is that it will fail to bring about the absolute imposition of human rights in Islamic societies. Why? Above all, most Islamic law of Muslim countries is rooted in the conservative view of Islam. Also, Islam is the established religion in most Middle Eastern countries (Baderin, 2008, p. 463). According to Doebbler (2006), most Islamic societies may prefer to follow their religious rules rather than the human rights law which is believed to be founded on the principles of Western secularism and liberalism. Conservatives and Islamic states worship Islamic law and denounce international human rights law. They do not simply condemn the international human rights law but also view it as a contemporary instrument of Western hegemony (Anheier & Isar, 2007). According to Abdul Aziz Said, “The essential characteristic of human rights in Islam is that they constitute obligations connected with the Divine and derive their force from this connection” (Baderin, 2008, p. 464); he also believes that (Anheier & Isar, 2007, p. 133): The present global system, however, is dominated by a Western attitude of cultural superiority... what is right for the West is [considered] right for others. This Western moral and philosophical posture projects a parochial view of human rights exclusive of the cultural realities and present existential condition of the Muslim world. Abul A’la Maududi (1995 as cited in Shah, 2006, p. 5) has severely criticized the Western human rights doctrine. He proclaimed (as cited in Shah, 2006, p. 5): The rights granted by the kings or the legislative assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are conferred... since in Islam human rights have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world or any government on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. These divine rights are everlasting and predetermined and should be followed all the time Several key aspects can be discerned from these interpretations of Islamic human rights. Primarily, the foundation of rights and obligations in Islam is divine. Valuing human rights is tantamount to accomplishing the obligation required by divine rule. A person has rights because another person fulfills his/her divine obligation (Anheier & Isar, 2007). This is at odds with international human rights principles, which are the creation of humankind driven by human sufferings in the 20th century. Within this perspective, a person has rights because s/he is a human being. Moreover, Islamic human rights are rooted in the belief that all things come from God and human beings are only God’s servants. On the other hand, international human rights doctrine declares that humankind is the center of all things (Martin et al., 2006). Yet, some Muslim scholars overlook the fact that the international human rights law emphasizes how individuals or groups are treated in the actual world. It is not concerned about the connection of humankind to God. In Islam, an individual could be God’s servant but an individual cannot be humankind’s servant (Shah, 2006, p. 6). Furthermore, the Koran is not restricted to the connection between humankind and the Creator but includes the connection between human beings. As stated in the Koran: “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you” (Shah, 2006, p. 6). Interpreting this passage, Ali (1989 as cited in Shah, 2006, p. 6) explains that “as Islam makes no sharp division between sacred and secular affairs, it expects governments to be imbued with righteousness. Likewise, Islam expects Muslims to respect the authority of such government” (as cited in Shah, 2006, p. 6). Islamic human rights are divinely inspired and are predetermined and perpetual; on the contrary, international human rights law is changeable and artificial. Some may dispute the ‘changeable and artificial’ features of human rights law claiming that it is permanent and cannot be altered, such as the right to live, whilst others may claim that God is unseen in human rights (Shah, 2006, p. 6). Some specific examples of conflicts between international human rights law and Sharia law are as follows. First is the Sharia law of apostasy. As stated in Sharia, denial of the Islamic faith is a capital offense and carries capital punishment. This feature of Sharia is incompatible with the basic human right of religious freedom (Martin et al., 2006, p. 952). The apostasy law can also be exercised to limit other human rights like freedom of expression. An individual may be charged with a capital offense for expressing opinions seen by officials to disobey the recognized interpretation of the Islamic doctrine. This view of the apostasy law was implemented in Sudan when a Sudanese Muslim liberal was put to death because the officials found his opinions in opposition to Islam (Martin et al., 2006, p. 952). Another case in point of the conflict between international human rights and Sharia law concerns non-Muslims’ rights and status. Sharia labels the people of a Muslim country in terms of their faiths: nonbelievers and Muslims. In the contemporary period, Muslims are the only recognized members of a Muslim country, possessing all the privileges, freedoms, and rights awarded by Sharia (Martin et al., 2006, p. 952). Muslims are allowed to join the ‘dhimma’ ranks, a specific agreement with the Islamic state which grants them protection and a measure of collective freedom to pursue their own religious beliefs and satisfy their interests according to their laws and traditions. ‘Dhimmis’, as part of their agreement, pay a form of tax called ‘jizya’ and surrender to Muslim power in every public matter. Within this system, non-Muslims in a Muslim society can only join the dhimma ranks, wherein they would experience severe abuses of their human rights (Martin et al., 2006, p. 952). Dhimmis occupy an inferior status in Muslim societies. The Current Case Aside from proclamations and provisions based on Islamic law, mentions of Islamic law as regards various matters have also been given, as regards the execution of the covenant, in the regular statements of Islamic states to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) like Yemen, Sudan, Morocco, Kuwait, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, and Algeria. The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has focused seriously on these Islamic countries about those mentions of Islamic law in the analysis of those statements (Baderin & Ssenyonjo, 2010, p. 350). For instance, throughout the HRC analysis of the 2007 statement of Algeria, the Algerian delegates reported that the country “had exercised its legitimate right to express its reservations to the Covenant regarding contradictions with Islamic sharia and that the reservations did not undermine the substance of the Covenant, but rather related to the sociological situation in Algeria” (Baderin & Ssenyonjo, 2010, p. 350). Although Algeria had not agreed to a provision or proclamation with regard to ICCPR’s Article 18 (see Appendix A), in a discussion with the delegates about the coverage of religious freedom in Algeria, an HRC representative emphasised, with regard to Islamic law, that (Baderin & Ssenyonjo, 2010, p. 350): Freedom of religion as defined in Article 18 included freedom to change one’s religion or faith. It was claimed that the sharia did not permit such action, but that depended on how the sharia was interpreted. The question of apostasy (ridda) in Islam was not a doctrinal but a socio-political issue... A person might decide to change his or her religion on account of personal conviction or in response to peaceful proselytism. Moreover, Islam itself engaged in proselytism through a multitude of organizations. He, therefore, requested information regarding the legal situation in Algeria for changing one’s religion. The HRC fears that certain affairs encouraging individuals to replace their Islamic faith have been officially classified as a crime in Algeria. According to a 2011 UN article, current developments happening all over the Middle East highlighted the urgent necessity to strengthen human rights in the region. The protest campaigns in the Middle East have reconfirmed the influence of human rights in locales where suppression and dispossession of rights appeared unchallengeable circumstances in the past (United Nations, 2011b, para 1-4). Navanethem Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, confirmed that the agency is sending out missions to several Middle Eastern countries, including Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen to monitor the implementation of international human rights law (United Nations, 2011b, para 1-10). The UN is also trying to address the human rights dilemma of Palestinian political prisoners. The UN, according to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, fights violent transfer and treatment of Palestinian political prisoners, which had wider repercussions for international human rights (United Nations, 2011a, para 1-7). Moreover, according to the 2011 World Development Report (WDR) of the World Bank, violent conflict in the Middle East has made it more difficult to guarantee the full implementation of international human rights law in the region. WDR highlights the detrimental effect of continuous conflict on the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of the region (Lind, Gustafsson, & Raghavan, 2011). In its analysis of the second statement of Iran, the HRC emphasised that it appeared that the execution of the Covenant was bringing about difficulties for Iran, which often raised the point that the Covenant runs counter to the Islamic doctrine and that it would want to be informed of what Islamic law principles run counter to the Covenant (Kaminski, 2012). HRC asked certain questions about various concerns as regards Islamic law as exercised in the country, like women’s testimony, religious freedom, and freedom of expression. It underlined that based on Islamic law “Iranian legislation stipulated that the testimony of two women was equivalent to that of one man” (Baderin & Ssenyonjo, 2010, p. 351) and persuaded Iran that although the precepts embedded in Islamic law should be followed, the weakness of their interpretation must be examined more intently. HRC articulated its idea that although Iran had not agreed to any provisions of the ICCPR, the country seemed to have “mental reservations about the implementation of the Covenant, since it seemed to find it normal to impose restrictions or to fail to enforce certain rights if the shariah so required” (Baderin & Ssenyonjo, 2010, p. 351). The Iranian delegate answered that those prohibitions based on Islamic law rigidly conform to the pertinent conditions of the covenant that decisively declare that the fulfillment of those freedoms should be under specific limitations needed ‘for respect of the rights or reputations of others’ and ‘for the protection of national security or of public order, or public health or morals’ (Human Rights Watch, 2008, p. 10). According to the report of Kaminski (2012), the Iranian delegate further stated that the interpretation of several of the Covenant’s articles requires greater flexibility to accommodate cultural diversities, particularly about marital duties and rights, which Iran believed may be interpreted differently from Western societies. Conclusions Usually one of the utmost difficulties experienced by people in societies that have not developed their human rights institutions is their failure to participate wholly in the formation of international human rights law. Consequently, this pushes some people in these societies to think as though several human rights standards have been forcefully obliged on them. Islamic human rights scholars fail to accurately understand that the relationship between the state and the people is naturally conflicting and that the people, which the weaker side, require the strong protection of political and civil rights to counteract the inclinations of contemporary regimes to exercise their authority without regard for individual freedom. Moreover, they expect individual freedom to submit to the established religion. Within these perspectives, Islam is seen as an instrument for limiting and subordinating the freedom of individuals. Nevertheless, the precepts of Sharia law that are used to limit freedoms and rights are stated unclearly that they fail to conclusively identify what is an acceptable and unacceptable violation of human rights. Specifically, they do not safeguard the individual from human rights abuses that are criminalized by international law. Regional organizations may contribute to the implementation of human rights standards in the Middle East. With better involvement in the formation of international human rights law using regional organizations, both international organizations and people in the Middle East will probably be supported. References Anheier, H. & Isar, Y. (2007) Cultures and Globalisation: Conflicts and Tensions. London: SAGE. Baderin, M. (2008) International Law and Islamic Law. London: Ashgate. Baderin, M. & Ssenyonjo, M. (2010) International Human Rights Law: Six Decades after the UDHR and Beyond. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Doebbler, C. (2006) Introduction to International Human Rights Law. New York: CD Publishing. Human Rights Watch (2008) ‘You Can Detain Anyone for Anything’, Human Rights Watch 20(1E), 1-48. Kaminski, R. (2012) UN Condemns the Islamic Republic of Iran on Human Rights, The Interdependent: Your Window to the UN, [online] Available at: [accessed 20 January 2013]. Lind, L., Gustafsson, S., & Raghavan, V. (2011) Development and Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC: World Bank. Martin, F. et al. (2006) International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, A.E. (1991) Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Shah, N. (2006) Women, the Koran and International Human Rights Law: The Experience of Pakistan. Danvers, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. United Nations, 2011a. As Bold Changes Sweep Middle East, Secretary General Calls for Release of Palestinian Political Prisoners, as UN Meeting Opens in Vienna, United Nations General Assembly, [online] Available at: < http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gapal1183.doc.htm> [accessed 19 January 2013]. United Nations, 2011b. Protest Movements in Middle East, North Africa Reaffirm Reach of Human Rights Even Where Repression ‘Once Seemed Immutable’, Third Committee Told, United Nations General Assembly, [online] Available at: < http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gashc4015.doc.htm> [accessed 19 January 2013]. Read More