Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im

What do we mean by universal

Any concept of human rights that is to be universally accepted and globally enforced demands equal respect and mutual comprehension between rival cultures

Why should Muslims abandon Jihad ? Human rights and the future of international law

Abstract This article examines the basis and reality of international legality and the universality of human rights from an Islamic perspective. The author calls for principled commitment and systematic respect for the institutional framework of international legality and the rule of law to encourage Muslims to abandon traditional notions of jihad. Similarly, since the institutional framework of legality and the rule of law in international relations is necessary for the protection of human rights as well, the absence of this framework would undermine the credibility and viability of human rights norms.

Human Rights, Universality and Sovereignty: The Irrelevance and Relevance of Sharia

In this article I argue that the paradoxes of universality and self-regulation by the state are inherent to the human rights paradigm itself in its application to every cultural, religious and ideological context. By the paradox of universality I refer to the expectation of global agreement on universal human rights norms among peoples of radically different cultural (including religious and ideological) traditions around the world. The paradox of self-regulation by the state is in expecting any state to adopt human rights norms to limit its own powers, and then to effectively enforce those limitations against the officials of the same state. This article focuses on the internal dimension of this process in relation to Islamic societies. The case of Sharia is examined here to illustrate how the paradoxes of universality and self-regulation can be mediated through an internal discourse within Islamic societies. I examine the prospects of Islamic reform in light of the cultural relevance and the legal irrelevance of Sharia norms and the possibility of their internal transformation from an Islamic point of view.

A View From (and For) the North Atlantic

The term “human rights” is incidentally mentioned a few times throughout this book, but the subject of human rights does not seem to be within the focus of this political science study of political regimes and their patterns of behavior—regarding religion in this case. Ani Sarkissian states early in her book that the “central question of this book is why some countries choose to repress religion while others do not.” Additional questions she raises and attempts to answer include: “What type of policies do states use to repress religious groups? How do political leaders decide which religious groups to repress? Why do some states target small seemingly nonthreatening religious groups with repression?”1 In the author’s view, “few [studies] delve into why states vary in their policies and why they choose to target specific groups. This book aims to fill this gap.”2 This focus is elaborated in the author’s view of religion, rights, and repression in Chapter 1. Using quantitative data, the author finds that religious repression occurs at high levels across the range of nondemocratic regime types. She suggests that variations in religious repression depend on the interaction of the level of political competition in a state with the structure of religious divisions in society. To begin with, it is remarkable that Sarkissian claims to gather and re-organize quantitative data to represent the varieties of religious restrictions by level of political competition in 101 countries around the entire world, despite multiple and complex diversity among and within religions and regions. It is therefore not surprising that such an approach yields problematic outcomes. For instance, five sets of countries, namely, Laos and Libya, Nigeria and Thailand, Rwanda and Venezuela, Ghana, Lesotho and Paraguay, Albania and South Africa, share the same ranking,3 despite the extreme and complex diversities among and within the relevant religions and cultures, long term history, pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial experiences, and present geo-political contexts of these countries. The overreach and reductionist view of complex concepts and experiences persists throughout this book, even when the author attempts to apply some corrective measures. Sarkissian seeks to complement the quantitative measurements she used by presenting comparative case-studies of the historical and structural characteristics of sixteen states and societies which are implicated in some type of religious

Toward a Universal Doctrine of Reparation for Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

Introduction In this brief essay I try to make a preliminary case for the development of a universal doctrine of reparation for violations of human rights and humanitarian law that draws on different legal traditions, without being confined to the specific framework of any of them. The critical need for this approach is indicated by the essential nature and purpose of international law. Because human rights and humanitarian law principles are supposed to be universal in validity and application, the doctrine of reparation should not be limited to principles of some legal traditions, to the exclusion of others. In any case, no single legal tradition can fully satisfy the reparation requirements of human rights and humanitarian law, due to the basic incompatibility of the two types of legal systems in such matters as jurisdiction and general principles of liability for compensation. Whereas traditional legal systems envisage their subject and cause of action, for example, in terms of domestic legal systems and, where relevant, conflict of laws principles among different legal systems, human rights and humanitarian law should be based on universal entitlement and jurisdiction. All major legal traditions recognize the idea of harm and the consequent entitlement of the victim or his/her estate to compensation, in addition to punishment for the perpetrator when the elements of a criminal offence are also satisfied. As is to be expected, however, the scope and requirements of these particular doctrines of responsibility and remedies are determined by a variety of political, philosophical, religious, legal, and other considerations specific to the context of the particular legal system. The nature and practical application of these doctrines are also affected by such factors as the level of institutional capacity and development of the jurisdictions in question, and the cultural or social attitudes toward accountability and remedies. Emerging out of the state practice, institutions, and general principles of law of West European states during the 17th to 19th centuries, traditional international law continued to draw on the same sources because those were the most familiar