Academic literature on the topic 'Human rights (Islamic law)'

This thesis examines the important question of whether or not Islamic law and international human rights are compatible and whether Muslim States can comply with international human rights law while they still adhere to Islamic law. The traditional arguments on the subject are examined and responded to from both international human rights and Islamic legal perspectives. The thesis formulates a synthesis between two extremes and argues that although there are some differences of scope and application, that does not create a general state of dissonance between Islamic law and international human rights law. It is argued that the differences would be easier to address if the concept of human rights were positively established from within the themes of Islamic law rather than imposing it as a concept alien to Islamic law. To avoid a simplistic generalisation of the arguments, each Article of the international bill of rights (ICCPR and ICESCR) and some relevant articles of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women are analysed in the light of Islamic law. The thesis theoretically engages international human rights law in dialogue with Islamic law and then evaluates the human rights policy of modern Muslim States within the scope of that dialogue. The State Practice of six Muslim States is examined as case studies to establish the arguments of the thesis. The thesis concludes, inter alia, that it is possible to harmonise the differences between Islamic law and international human rights law through the adoption of the margin of appreciation doctrine by international human rights treaty bodies and the utilisation of the Islamic law doctrines of maqâsid al-sharî‘ah (overall objective of Sharî‘ah) and maslahah (welfare) by Muslim States in their interpretation and application of Islamic law respectively. It is asserted that Islamic law can serve as an important vehicle for the enforcement of international human rights law in the Muslim world and recommendations are advanced to that effect in the conclusion.

This thesis establishes a framework for analysing and evaluating human rights within the contexts of global, African-Islamic and Sudanese cultural diversity. The normative impact of culture on international human rights is viewed from the perspective that culture is adaptive and flexible. African-lslamic culture, as exemplified by the Sudan, is no exception.<br>The first part of this thesis advances a theoretical framework for recognition of cultural diversity and its impact on human rights. Recognition of change as an integral part of culture is vital for a successful mobilisation of internal cultural norms to the support of international human rights. An important conclusion is that ruling elites and those engaged in human rights violations have no valid claim of cultural legitimacy.<br>The second part of the thesis examines the notion of human rights in traditional Africa and under Shari'a with a specific focus on conceptions of the individual, the nation-state and international law. It is argued that the African-Islamic context is an amalgam of both communitarianism and individualism; further, that the corrupt and oppressive nature of the nation-state in Islamic Africa demands an effective implementation of human rights as set out in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.<br>It is suggested in the third part of the thesis that three of the rights included in the African Charter are paramount to effective human rights protection in Islamic Africa: the right to self-determination, the right to freedom of expression and the right to participate in public life. These rights are examined within the Sudanese context in order to provide a more concrete illustration of their potential implementation. The dynamics of Sudanese culture are explored to exemplify a culturally responsive implementation of these rights.<br>This thesis contributes to the debate on the role of culture in enhancing the binding force of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It aims to inspire pragmatic discussion on the need for effective protection of human rights in order to alleviate the suffering of millions of Africans under existing ruthless and shameless regimes.

This thesis explores the ways in which Islamic law and human rights interact within the work of women’s rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that advocate the reform of the Egyptian Personal Status Law (PSL) in the period between 2006 and 2010. The thesis shows the relevance of the human rights framework as well as the flexibility of Islamic legal discourse in the work of the NGOs. Drawing on both Islamic law and human rights enabled NGOs to develop a more gender-sensitive religious discourse, which supported their PSL reform demands. However the interaction between these two frameworks was largely affected by several important factors, which sometimes led NGOs to dilute some of their demands. These factors included the implications of the change in the form of Shari‘a as codified law under the modern nation-state; the Egyptian political context both internally and externally; the common local perception that human rights are a Western production and an extension of Western colonialism; the dominant religious but patriarchal discourse governing the PSL; the implications of activism through the NGO structure; and the personal religiosity of individual activists. The thesis explores NGOs’ PSL reform demands in depth bearing in mind these factors. It investigates NGOs’ discourse and shows its strengths and weaknesses. It shows that the interaction between Islamic law and human rights within NGOs’ work in this particular Egyptian context produced reform demands that were innovative and practically appealing on one hand, but epistemologically problematic in some instances, on another.

International human rights laws are grossly violated by the hudud ordinances, with their extremely cruel punishments, including stoning for adultery, beheading for apostasy, and amputation for theft. Pakistan, Sudan, Brunei Darussalam and Saudi Arabia, for example, follow the doctrines of the four main Sunni schools of jurisprudence and enforce hudud ordinances, thereby violating some of the core international human rights law instruments to which they are State Parties. Orthodox Muslims generally defend the hudud ordinances, claiming that they are divine and immutable. This study refutes the aforementioned claim and demonstrates that it is legitimate and possible to reform hudud punishments to reconcile them with international human rights law. The thesis differentiates between Shariah and Islamic law. It argues that Shariah refers to the divine rulings recorded in the Qur'an and correct Sunnah, while Islamic law is not fully divine, for it includes also such prescriptions that have been developed by the human effort of Islamic jurists. The thesis demonstrates that reformation is an Islamic concept that requires that Muslims read the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah in the context of their own time and environment. It is postulated, therefore, that the rulings of Islamic law need to be examined in the light of the Qur'an, the correct Sunnah and the Islamic core values promoted in them. These include several internationally protected human rights, such as the right to life, equality, and freedom of religion. The thesis points out that the main purpose of Shariah is to serve the benefit of the people and to protect them from harm. To this end, Shariah has provided the Islamic principles of reality and necessity. These require that the reality of life and the needs of the people be considered at all times. If necessary for the sake of the people, the principles allow for exceptions to be made to even definite provisions. It, further, demonstrates how these principles can be applied to reform the hudud ordinances to reconcile them with international human rights law.

The present thesis attempts a critical examination of the theory of war under Islamic and public international law, in an effort to demonstrate that jihad is a just, defensive, and exceptional form of warfare, geared to the maintenance of peace, and the protection of human rights for all people, whether those rights be exercised alone or in association with others, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religious belief. Through an examination of the norms of Islamic and public international law on armed conflict, this thesis argues that Islamic law, which governs the doctrine of jihad, is realistic and practical. Further, it made a great contribution to international humanitarian law more than a millennium before the codification of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and eight centuries before the appearance of Hugo Grotius treatise "De jure belli ac pacis libri tres" in 1625.<br>Furthermore, this comparative study reveals that the word jihad might be one of the most misunderstood terms in the history of Islamic legal discourse. This analysis also claims that the division of the world into dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) and dar al-harb (territory of war), which is not predicated on a state of mutual hostility, was dictated by particular events, and was not imposed by scripture. Moreover, this discussion provides that Islamic humanitarian law regulates conduct during a jihad on the basis of certain humane principles, compatible with those upon which modern international conventions are based. Finally, this thesis concludes that there is a unique relationship between jihad and the notion of just war, a matter which qualifies it as the bellum justum of Islam.

Thesis (Ph.D) -- Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 2000.<br>Adviser: Andrew Hess. Typescript. Vita. Bibliography: unnumbered leaves. Access restricted to members of the Tufts University community. Also available via the World Wide Web;

Die wichtigste dieser Arbeit zugrunde liegende Frage ist, ob ein spezifisches muslimisches Strafrecht in den muslimischen Ländern noch angewendet werden kann. Gibt es eine Zukunft für die Sharia, und wenn ja, wie sieht diese aus? Welche Art des Strafrechts wird zurzeit und zukünftig benötigt, um ein ruhiges und beständiges Leben in islamischen Gesellschaften zu ermöglichen? Können diese Gesellschaften einen Gesetzeskodex anwenden, der den internationalen und inländischen Erwartungen im Sinne der grundlegenden Menschenrechte sowie den Prinzipien von Gerechtigkeit und Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz entspricht? Mit dieser vorliegende Recherche möchte ich wichtige Konzepte des Strafrechts erklären - nicht nur Nicht-Muslimen sondern auch Muslimen. Wir haben selbst auch das Bedürfnis zu erlernen, wie man mittels wissenschaftlicher Methoden und Logik das islamische Strafrecht erforschen und erfassen kann. Wir möchten zeigen, wie islamisches Strafrecht durch Studie und Analyse verstanden werden sollte. Die Auslegung des Gesetzes muss entsprechend dem Nutzen und im Interesse der Menschen geändert werden, weil Gott möchte, dass seine gesamte Schöpfung in Frieden, Gerechtigkeit und Respekt füreinander lebt. Die heutige islamische Welt ist streng in Modernismus und Fundamentalismus geteilt. Beide Denkweisen können in hohem Grade über ihr Verhältnis zum Westen definiert werden. Modernismus zieht in Betracht, was der Westen erzielt hat und verlangt eine Anpassung der eigenen Ideen, Werte und Bräuche. Die Modernisten befürworten eine ausgedehnte Deutung des Islams, um traditionelle islamische Lehren und Prinzipien harmonisch mit den Aspekten einer modernen, progressiven Gesellschaft co-existieren zu lassen. Fundamentalismus dagegen verlangt die Rückkehr zum angeblich ursprünglichsten Konzept des Islam, das westliche Errungenschaften und Konzepte zurückweist. Bereits zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts stimmten liberale islamische Denker darin überein, dass es zwingend notwendig ist, die rechtlichen Grundlagen zu modernisieren ohne dabei jedoch islamische Beschränkungen völlig zu vernachlässigen.<br>The big question underlying this work is whether a specific Muslim criminal law can still be applied in Muslim countries. Is there a future for the Sharia, and if yes, how will it look like? What type of criminal law is needed at present and in the future in order to provide for peaceful and stable Islamic societies that apply a law code that meets international and domestic expectations in view of basic human rights as well as general approaches towards justice and equality before the Law? Through this research I would like to explain some important points of criminal law not just for the non -Muslims but also for Muslims. We ourselves want to learn how to conduct research using scientific methods and logic in order to understand Islamic criminal law. We want to show how Islamic criminal law should be understood through study and analysis. The analysis of law must be changed according to the benefits and interests of the people because God wants to see all his creation living in good way, peacefully, with justice and respect for each others. The Islamic world of today is sharply divided between modernism and fundamentalism. Both streams of thought may be defined to a large extent by their relationship to the West. Modernism takes into account what the West has achieved and calls for an adaptation to one's own ideas, values and practices. They advocate a broad interpretation of Islam for harmonising the traditional Islamic teachings and principles with the needs of a modern, progressive society. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, implies a return to a supposedly original core Islamic concept that rejects Western achievements. By the beginning of the 20th century there was a consensus among liberal Islamic thinkers about the necessity to reform and to meet modern legal standards without totally abandoning Islamic restrictions.