Universal or selective?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) begins with a preamble, the first clause of which says
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) also begins with a preamble; its first clause is quite different:
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization…
We are in different worlds already. The UDHR, because it is universal and because the universality is the whole point, does not carve up the human family into nations or religions, while the CDHRI does exactly that from the very beginning. The UDHR starts with the rights of all human beings, the CDHRI starts with the superiority of the Islamic Ummah. In short the CDHRI subverts the entire purpose of the UDHR in its very first words.
The UDHR preamble’s second clause makes clear why the universality and equality of rights are so important and why the invocation of the superiority of a particular community is so sharply – so pointedly, even wickedly – at odds with the purpose of the UDHR.
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind…
The UDHR was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the Nazi genocide. The human rights in question had to be universal in order to address ‘barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind’; if the human rights are particular then we’re right back where we started, committing barbarous acts against people who are not members of ‘the best nation.’ So with the CDHRI we’re right back where we started.
I’m intrigued by this :
“to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization”
“this materialistic civilization”… I suspect they mean Western civilisation and none other.
Can we behead murderers and terror fundraisers on youtube?
What about the chronic problems of the Ummah? The oppression of women, the demonisation of gays and lesbians (well, gays anyway, women don’t have a say), the chronic inability to accommodate democratic ways of making decisions, the lack of scientific knowledge, scholarship and expertise – well, anyway, not only are we right back where we started, we’ve just slid down a snake!
Yes well that comes later. I was just dealing with that particular passage of the preamble there. This is a large subject…
What always astonishes is the extraordinary transparency of stated to actual aims by Islamic leaders, government officials and their representatives. Is there no contradiction that cannot be lost on them?
Austin Dacey says that the religious must be allowed to play their part in the free-for-all of the secular square, addressing themselves to everyone, and allowing their proposals to stand or fall on the evidence. It is quite clear from the Cairo Declaration that this is something that Muslims are not prepared to do. After all, there’s nothing to discuss. God has already provided the perfect society (or best nation) in complete harmony with now and hereafter.
What is to be done when Muhammad won’t play and runs back to mommy with his marbles? Dacey doesn’t really address this in his book, The secular conscience. If one group decides that their ‘truths’ are higher than other beliefs (say, materialistic ones), and automatically trump all criticism, what does the secular conscience do then?
We are right back where we started, indeed, but with a difference. Now the issue is right out there in the open, as it wasn’t in 1948, namely, the issue of whether religion does have a role to play in the public square. It only has this role if it’s willing to play the same game as others are playing. They can’t presume to start from a position of privilege, which the Cairo Declaration does. So, how do we get them to play the game of ‘Show me!’ (that is, present the evidence, back up your claims).
That is indeed the question. I don’t know the answer, but I do at least think that one necessary step is to point out the problem. This post is actually part of chapter 6 of the book Jerry and I are writing.
Jenavir, you are quite right, and I did not mean to treat Islam as a monolith. However, when Islam makes claims, such as the Cairo Declaration does, to represent the best nation, it has turned itself into a monolith, and it is very hard to see what can be said, in the public square, that could serve to justify such hubris.
If Muslims represent values that it would be good for all of us to adopt, and can show this to be so, in the give and take of public discussion, then of course we can take it as read that those values have a right to be heard, and maybe even a claim to be adopted. In the latter case, however, they cease being simply Islamic values, and become human ones, and should not then be referred to Islam as the source (except perhaps historically).
This is why I object when Christians talk about Judeo-Christian values of love and compassion. If they are truly human values, and appropriate for all of us to adopt in our lives, then we can stop talking Judeo-Christian here, and merely talk human. This is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all about, in my understanding. If religious groups lay claim to the values expressed in the UDHR, they turn value into a tribal thing, and that is what we need to sedulously avoid in this process of establishing values that can be respected universally.
Nope, Islam does not make such claims, the people who signed the Cairo declaration did. We shouldn’t forget to differentiate between those who claim to speak for the people and the people themselves…
Ophelia – I am not quite familiar with this specific travesty on Human Rights but as you’re writing (part of) a book on it, can you clarify? Is the purpose of it to replace the UDHR or rather to express this UDHR in verbiage specific to Islam (as might be indicated by the Human Rights ‘in’ Islam wording). I am by the way sure that, whatever purpose is publicly avowed you’re spot on that the UDHR cannot be taken as a starting point to carve up the human nation and that this is precisely the only reason for declaring something of the sort as declared in Cairo.
Nevertheless, I believe that defenders of Islam are not necessarily stupid, & in theory there should not be an issue for UDHR to ‘translate’ into specifics of a Rawlsian comprehensive doctrine – as long as the translation isn’t taken as more important than the original. I hope my non-nativeness in English does not confuse my point too much: my only interest lies in their public intent – not in what they really want.
To Eric’s question, I do not know what the secular conscience would to but if a certain doctrine puts itself above a secular rule of law it is illegal & we should prosecute. The matter obviously is different in countries without some secular rule of law – in this case one can only intervene in case of fragrant abuses (& only then if one has more in mind than a desire of improvement i.e. if one has a plan). Until then it will be a matter of knowing that reason can only win in the long run.
Jenavir and Arnaud are right, Eric – it’s particular people who made the claims, not Islam. The same of course applies to the UDHR.
JoB, the OIC has an ongoing campaign against the UDHR. The Cairo Declaration is definitely meant to replace to UD for [all, in principle] Muslims. It doesn’t really mean much to say that in theory there should not be an issue, because in reality there is very much an issue – an issue is all there is. The goal of the CD is to provide a substantive alternative to the UD – incompatability is the whole point.
It’s true, it’s always particular people who make claims. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, whatever, can always be thought to be above and beyond the fray. Well, I’m quite prepared to accept that, except that, when Benedict the pope makes claims for the church’s beliefs or prescriptions, he makes claims as much more than an individual. And when the OIC endorses the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, although not Islam, because Islam is, after all, an abstraction, individuals make the declaration, it still represents, in some sense, Islam.
Recently, we have seen some catholic organisations make an appeal to the Vatican to reverse the decision made by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, which has characterised the Roman Catholic conception of sexuality ever since. Of course, not all Catholics accepted it, but Humanae Vitae expressed the Catholic view, which made it so destructive.
So, sure, I acknowledge that probably lots of Muslim do not accept the Cairo Declaration, and yet, in some sense, being fostered by the OIC, it does represent Islam. Otherwise we are going to be fighting with shadows forever.
OB, thanks.
The pope, definitely, but the OIC does not translate straightforwardly to a pope-equivalent. It’s not even close. (The OIC is a very bizarre organization, in my view, but that still doesn’t make it a pope-equivalent.) The OIC would doubtless like to speak for all Muslims, but it can’t claim to in the way that the pope emphatically can. The pope is the pinnacle of a hierarchy that explicitly does set Catholic doctrine; the OIC is not the Islamic equivalent; there is no Islamic equivalent.
It just doesn’t make sense to say that the Cairo Declaration, because it was produced by the OIC, does represent Islam. Apart from anything else, that has the effect of endorsing what is in fact an enormous presumption.