1. CNS News (http://cnsnews.com)
‘Islam Is Not Incompatible With Human Rights Standards,’ Islamic Bloc Insists, 26 April 2012
by Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has set up a new human rights body, which will “review and update” a 22-year-old OIC document stating that all human rights and freedoms must be subjected to Islamic law (shari’a).
The Islamic bloc has long faced criticism over the poor human rights records of many of its members. Of the 56 sovereign states making up the OIC, only five are rated “free” by Freedom House, a Washington- based organization that evaluates countries each year based on political rights and civil liberties. (The five are Benin, Guyana, Indonesia, Mali and Suriname.)
A conference of OIC foreign ministers last June decided to establish the “Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission,” which held its first meeting in Jakarta earlier this year.
Meeting twice a year, the IPHRC comprises 18 human rights experts, one each from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and “Palestine.”
OIC spokesman Rizwan Sheikh described the body as “the human rights conscience of the OIC” and said its members – who will act in their personal capacities and not as representatives of their countries – will give advisory opinions to member states on a range of rights issues.
Addressing the inaugural session, OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said that because of “Islamophobia,” concerns about human rights in Islamic countries have been “blown out of proportion.”
“Islam is being wrongly associated with human rights violations,” he said. “There is a motivated campaign at portraying Islam as inherently incompatible with international human rights norms and standards. I am of a firm belief that the case is exactly the opposite. Islam is not incompatible with human rights standards.”
Ihsanoglu said one of the tasks awaiting the IPHRC was “to review and update OIC instruments, including the Cairo Declaration.”
Signed by OIC members in 1990, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam asserts the superiority of Islam and stipulates that all human rights and freedoms are subject to shari’a.
On the subject of freedom of speech, it says “everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the shari’a.”
“[Information] may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith,” the declaration says.
One provision declares Islam to be “the religion of unspoiled nature,” and prohibits the exploitation of a man’s “poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.”
The document concludes by stressing that shari’a “is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”
Shari’a informs the constitutions and legal systems of a number of the OIC’s most active members, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Critics say some provisions lead to the discriminatory treatment of women, religious minorities, and converts from Islam to other faiths.
Over the years the OIC has invoked the Cairo Declaration in its campaign at the United Nations and elsewhere against what it calls the “defamation” of Islam.
2. Worldwide Religious News (http://wwrn.org)
It's Time to Revise The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, 24 April 2012
by Turan Kayaoğlu ("Assyrian International News Agency," April 24, 2012)
Cairo, Egypt - To the surprise of many, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has shown a new commitment to advancing human rights by establishing an Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission within the organization. In the Commission's first meeting in Jakarta, Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu asked the 18-member Commission in his opening address to "review and update OIC instruments, including the Cairo Declaration [of Human Rights in Islam]…" If the Commission intends to indeed advance human rights, then the Cairo Declaration is the first among these instruments in need of serious revision.
In 1990, the OIC approved a document that is now referred to as the Cairo Declaration in an attempt reconcile the concept of human rights and Islam. The Declaration protects many of the universal human rights: it forbids discrimination; supports the preservation of human life, supports the protection of one's honor, family, and property; and affirms the human right to education, medical and social care, and a clean environment.
From an international human rights perspective, the controversial nature of the Cairo Declaration lies in its claim of adherence to Shari'ah. Its preamble affirms that"fundamental rights and universal freedoms are an integral part of [Islam]" and these rights and freedoms are "binding divine commandments" revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. The central role of Shari'ah can be clearly seen in the Declaration's articles. Article 22 states that "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to principles of Shari'ah." Article 12, affirms that "every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari'ah, to free movement" (nothing is said about every woman). Articles 24 and 25 further makes Shari'ah supreme by asserting that Shari'ah is the Declaration's "only source of reference."
Such shorthand and cursory use of Shari'ah gives rise to four important shortcomings. The first is that it renders the document too restrictive. Shari'ah represents an extensive moral and legal code, and limiting rights such as free speech to a Shari'ah compatible framework of values would essentially render free-speech meaningless. Furthermore, the document is rendered ambiguous., as it does not specify what constitutes Shari'ah. Given the diversity of opinions on the subject across time and between and within madhabs (schools of Islamic law), it is impossible to know what rights are protected.
Interestingly, the declaration empowers states, not individuals. In the modern world, Shari'ah has increasingly become integrated in states' domestic legal systems. In the absence of any international authority to decide on Shari'ah, the Cairo Declaration effectively diminishes the universality of human rights by relegating them to the discretion of governments.
Finally, the declaration conflicts with international human rights. The document provides only a subordinated status to religious minorities and also prohibits conversion from Islam. It also presents glaring evidence of discrimination against women, as it provides the right to freedom of movement or marriage only to men.
These shortcomings render the Declaration useless at best and at worst harmful for human rights. Not surprisingly, the only people who take the document seriously are critics of Islam who invoke it to argue the religion's incompatibility with human rights. Muslim advocacy groups, scholars on Islam and human rights, and even the OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu have either ignored the declaration or have avoided defending it publicly.
As part of OIC's new reform agenda, the Human Rights Commission presents a unique opportunity for genuine revision of the Cairo Declaration. Such revision will not only signal the OIC's commitment to human rights, but could also increase theits legitimacy and prestige among Muslims and in the international community, adding much-needed credibility to the new Commission. For the revision process is off to a good start as it has already mobilized the relatively strong NGO community in the Muslim world. Under the leadership of MAZLUMDER, a Turkish-Islamic human rights NGO, more than 230 such organizations from 24 OIC members appealed to the OIC to "ensure space for civil society participation in the Commission and follow a process that is consultative and inclusive of civil society at all levels."
Efforts at revision should aim to usher in a period of genuine dialogue about how Islam can enhance modern international human rights and not necessarily conflict with it. The Islamic legal and intellectual heritage provides a much stronger basis from which to engage with the liberal-secular precepts of modern international human rights. Drawing on that tradition and discarding the Cairo Declaration could deliver an Islamic Declaration on Human Rights that Muslims deserve, where its "Islamic" character can be invoked to protect more rights than those provided by similar human rights instruments, not fewer.
・Disclaimer: WWRN does not endorse or adhere to views or opinions expressed in the articles posted. This is purely an information site, to inform interested parties of religious trends.
3．Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
(1) New ISA law: An ogre supplanted by an octopus, 17 April 2012
by Terence Netto
If the Internal Security Act 1960 was an ogre that destroyed many lives, the new Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 is an octopus in whose tentacles Prime Minister Najib Razak's promised liberalisation suffers further smothering.
Last year's Public Assembly Bill 2011 was supposed to have kicked off Najib's liberalisation drive, touted in his Malaysia Day address of Sept 15.
What it did was merely to shorten the time frame for demonstrators to obtain police permits to stage protests.
It hadn't occurred to the powers-that-be that liberalisation means not having at all to obtain police permission to demonstrate.
Now we have another instance of cognitive dissonance: the new Security Offences Bill is supposed to be a substantive improvement over its predecessor, the ISA.
Actually, the bill attests the truth of the saying that looks can deceive. It's like seeing something by moonlight which can reveal the outline of a thing but not its true nature.
A close reading of the proposed new law's provisions would establish that in its details, it could enmesh a detainee in long periods of incarceration.
If detention without trial had rendered the Internal Security Act 1960 an abomination, continued detention after a court ordered release, which is a provision in the new law, would make a travesty of claims that the latter legislation is an improvement on the former.
Najib, in tabling the Security Offences Bill, blithely claimed the proposed new law is an improvement over the ISA because the grounds and means of an arrest under it are subject to judicial review.
"They [detainees] are free to file for writ of habeas corpus on the reason and means of their arrest," he told the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
"In short, the power of judicial review has been returned to the courts, unlike in the ISA where habeas corpus is only applicable to the means of arrest," Najib expatiated.
Detention after acquittal
What the PM didn't mention is that there is a provision in the Security Offences Bill for continued detention by the police, if the latter deem fit, of a person freed by the courts.
True, the new bill provides for judicial oversight of executive fiat - the detainee can challenge his detention in court.
This seeming amelioration over the ISA is negated by the new law's permission for the executive to continue holding the detainee until the appeal process is disposed.
The improvement of judicial oversight is cancelled by the latitude given the executive to reassert its primacy.
Countervailing powers are the essence of constitutional government. In allowing for the executive to hold a freed detainee until the appeal process is completed, the balance of power is tilted in favour of the executive.
Theoretically, this indefinite detention renders nugatory all the improvements to the duration - the new law limits it to 28 days compared to the ISA's provision of 60 days - of the initial period of detention of a person by the police.
Detention after acquittal is marginally, not substantively better than detention without trial - the feature of the ISA that had rendered it odious.
This provision for detention after acquittal is the tripwire that prevents the Security Offences Bill from being what the government asserts it is: a vast improvement over its predecessor and one that strikes an optimal balance between the demands of individual liberty and the security concerns of the state.
The extent the hype about the new law masks its harsh reality is further inferred from the provision that allows police to intercept communications without judicial sanction when investigating a detainee for a suspected security offence.
The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has expressed its demurral over this clause which it says can "infringe personal liberty and the right to privacy."
"The provisions in the Bill as well as the amendments to the other relevant laws must strike a balance between national security and fundamental liberties and human rights," Suhakam chairman Hasmy Agam said in a statement yesterday.
Thus opposition MPs were not the only ones to remonstrate with the government that the Security Offences Bill does little to advance the cause of political liberalisation in Malaysia.
Suhakam and the Bar Council, which had earlier criticised aspects of the Bill, feel likewise.
It appears the Malaysian public has not seen the last remnants of the dreaded ISA.
・TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for close on four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them. It is the ideal occupation for a temperament that finds power fascinating and its exercise abhorrent.
(2) Dr Mahathir insists ISA a 'good law', 16 April 2012
by Aidila Razak
As the Dewan Rakyat debates the replacement law for the Internal Security Act (ISA), former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad remains convinced that it is a "good law".
"We had the ISA because certain things had upset the stability of the country.
"It is not a bad law, but a good one which could curb potential threats," he told reporters in Kuala Lumpur today.
Mahathir, who has chalked several crackdowns under his premiership, added that the problem was not the law but the implementation.
To support his argument, Mahathir said the US which had criticised the ISA, now has a law which is “worse than the ISA”.
“They allow detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay, for even up to 10 years and allow torture.”
However, when asked how he feels the new replacement law will fare in curbing security threats, he replied: “I have not studied it yet.”
In 1987 the government under Mahathir executed the notorious Operation Lalang that saw 106 citizens detained under ISA, including opposition leaders Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh as well as civil rights activists such as Kua Kia Soong.
In a recent book about the leader, however, the long-running former PM had denied he was behind the swoop and blamed the police.
Gov’t should not pay for rich students
Meanwhile, on the ongoing debate over free tertiary education, the former prime minister said that abolishing the PTPTN (National Higher Education Fund) will place a greater burden on the country’s economy.
“If you abolish the PTPTN, you’ll have to introduce something else which will be more costly because it would mean free education which even the rich can enjoy,” he said.
He reiterated that the objective of PTPTN is to help the underprivileged obtain tertiary education and not for those who can afford it.
“If the students don’t like it then they don’t have to take the loans, and those who support the abolition of PTPTN can support the students (in their studies),” he said.
On Saturday hundreds of students marched down the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand free tertiary education while a smaller group had pitched tents at Dataran Merdeka to “occupy” the iconic square until their demands are heard.
The KL City Council (DBKL), however, contended the students were in violation of its by laws and its enforcement officers attempted to dismantle the tents, resulting in a scuffle on Sunday.
The students have regrouped and are continuing to face DBKL officers who are adamant that they leave the area.
(3) Anwar: No difference between new law and ISA, 16 April 2012
by Hazlan Zakaria
The new Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 tabled for its second reading in the Dewan Rakyat today is no different from the Internal Security Act it is replacing, says Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.
If anything, Anwar declared, it is more repressive and open to abuse.
"What is its difference from the ISA?" the Permatang Pauh MP asked at a press conference in the Parliament lobby, commenting specifically on indefinite detention.
"If before this, the Home Ministry and police were used, now it is the court process," said Anwar.
He was referring to a clause in the new Bill that allows for the public prosecutor, by way of an oral application, to ask that the court extend the detention of anyone acquitted for any offence under the proposed legislation.
"This is mandatory under the new law. The judge will have to agree. All it takes is an oral request," said Anwar, arguing that the end result iwould be just the same - indefinite arrest and detention of a person by a legislation that is open to abuse.
Under the ISA formulated in 1960 to fight the communist armed insurgency, the home minister can, upon request of the police and at his discretion, prolong detentions indefinitely.
This is something much criticised by anti-ISA advocates and what the government claimed the new law has addressed.
'Ties the hands of the courts'
Anwar argued that provisions under the new law, such as the mandatory extension of detention pending prosecution has "tied the (hands of the) courts" despite the government's claim that there is legal recourse for detainees.
He also criticised provisions that allow police and the prosecution to circumvent rigorous requirements for testimonies and evidence in court under the Evidence Act and to use "sensitive information" in court without disclosing nor verifying its veracity.
Such provisions, Anwar argued, were as good as imprisoning and accusing detainees without court-admissible evidence, as is the case under the present ISA.
This is something much criticised by anti-ISA advocates and what the government claims the new law has addressed.
In an immediate response, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein has called the opposition leader's allegations on the new law "irresponsible".
"This shows that they are an irresponsible opposition," Hishammuddin said, calling their opposition to the new security law an “empty show” for political mileage.
"Observing their debate I saw no content to their argument. They are just trying to deny the fact that we are moving forward," he added.
4. The Star Online (http://thestar.com.my)
(1) Churches misusing the pulpit, 25 April 2012
AS a practising Christian, I feel a sense of obligation to remind leaders of some churches not to allow the use of their pulpits for purposes other than for preaching the word of God.
I refer specifically to political sermons. Pastors and bishops are ordained by God to preach the Gospel, not incite people against the Government.
I would not have raised this issue if there had been only isolated cases of such misuse, but unfortunately the practice seems to be rampant, especially in some mainstream churches in Kuala Lumpur and other urban centres.
Some religious leaders are even inviting non-Christian politicians to address their congregations at church-organised seminars and meetings within the church compounds with clear political motives.
Don’t they realise they are being made use of by opportunist politicians who stoke emotions and preach divisive politics?
If church members wish to involve themselves in politics, they should join political parties and participate openly in political activities. And they should be prepared to take the risks too.
If they think that Christians need a greater voice in government, they should use the political process and the political parties to identify Christians and propose them as candidates for the next general election.
But do not use the church as your shield. When you do, you are doing other Christians a grave injustice.
I have heard many Christians say that all they want to do is to attend church service to worship and strengthen themselves spiritually.
But these days their desires are being hijacked, and they are receiving political indoctrination instead, much against their will. They resent this because they are apolitical.
But while they remain neutral they are fully aware of the political and other realities of life in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic society.
They have eyes to see. And they have noted that the exponential growth of Christians and churches in this country since independence is second to none in the world.
The 2000 Population and Housing Census Report indicates that approximately 11.5% of the rural population and 7.6% of the urban population are adherents to Christianity, making Christians the second largest and fourth largest faith community in their respective population strata.
History has proven, time and again, that religion and politics are a volatile mix. The goals are in conflict.
In the final analysis, as somebody once said “politics is about power and Christianity is about sacrifice”.
Church leaders should not indulge in self-righteous pontificating. They are of course entitled to their largely middle-class and upper middle-class Christian worldview, but they should realise that the government of the day has also to consider and accommodate the larger non-Christian lower middle-class worldview.
There is one other thing that I hope church elders will consider before they seek to remove the smote in others’ eyes.
I would ask them to spend some time in introspection. Isn’t there much that needs to be put right within the Church hierarchy and administration?
Deny not, like Peter did, albeit in different circumstances, that there are practices in the church that are not Christ-centred.
Is there politicking in church? Does money influence some decisions? Are there cliques and cronies? Please set these matters right first before casting the first stone.
STEVE ROADS,
Kuala Lumpur.
(2) Church-Govt ties good, 27 April 2012
THIS is in response to “Churches misusing the pulpit” (The Star, April 25). It is obvious that the writer is misconceived on the basic tenets of Christianity and the role churches have played and are playing in Malaysia.
He seems to think that the church should confine itself to worship and strengthening its followers spiritually. Worship is important, but Christianity is more than that. It is a religion with a social conscience.
The message of Christianity is clear from the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ himself. He spoke up for the poor and the oppressed. He healed the sick and fed the hungry.
Christians are called to “love your neighbour”, which means active concern for society and its problems. Christians are called upon to speak up against injustice, oppression and abuse in whatever form they may exist in society.
The fact that the Vatican is a political entity is testimony to the close nexus between politics and religion in Christianity.
This reality is not unknown to the Malaysian Government for it has close ties with the Vatican.
The Pope (head of the Catholic Church) is a vocal critic of oppressive regimes and policies wherever they exist. He champions social, political and human rights. The churches in Malaysia have always functioned within the Constitution and the law.
They have raised questions about what they perceive as abuse of power, oppression and injustice. They have held vigils to protest on issues. This is all within the ambit of Christian duty.
Sometimes this may be mistaken for “political indoctrination” as claimed by the writer.
The church in Malaysia has never told its followers how to vote. It is possible some may be politically influenced by the issues taken up by the Church. But how can one discuss social issues in a vacuum? Social problems exist in a political context.
The writer has failed to appreciate the good relationship that exists between the church and the Malaysian Government. His letter gives the false impression that the churches are against the Government.
The truth is the Government appreciates the excellent work the churches have done in many areas, including education, health and charity.
Dr I. LOURDESAMY,
Petaling Jaya.
(End)
