Talk:Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Starts with?[edit]

The article claims that the CDHRI "starts with" "All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities," The problem is that it doesn't start with that at all. The CDHRI starts with the following sentence, if we're talking about the beginning of the "rights" declarations - "All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam."

It's very difficult for me to assume good faith here, try as I might. This appears to be a very clear bias -- let's leave out the actual starting text and pretend that it doesn't start with an explicit appeal to Islam. Anyone who reads the actual document can clearly see that this Wikipedia article begins its analysis with a clear falsehood. I'm going to add citation needed after the opening sentence, unless someone has a better idea. Since we can't use the primary source as far as I understand wikipedia rules, I don't see a better option Neuralsim (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Urgent rewriting needed[edit]

This article is so biased... But that has already been said. What I want to highlight is that there is no list of countries that adopted the Cairo Declaration. We need this, because it would be interesting to see how countries deal with the declaration on an individual basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abueno97 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Badly Written[edit]

The problem with this article is that it is extremely biased but not in a pure POV way. The Declaration and Sharia Law itself say certain things, but then the Criticism section crticize those things. I mean, it's like: "The Declaration says X"; "The Declaration has been criticized for saying X". Fact is, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate on the merits of Sharia Law from a Western Point of view. The Declaration came into being because some Muslim nations considered that Western beliefs on human rights were incompatible with their own, and created their own statement. To criticize it because it is incompatible with Western human rights concepts is useless. It should only state that, because of its nature, it stands in opossition with Western Human Rights Conventions. Obviously, those that disagree with Sharia Law would criticize it for it, but then since this is pretty much a case of different opinions, an encyclopedic article does not benefit from the debate. And while they should be acknowledge, its really part of a different debate, perhaps even a different article.

This is very critical of the Islamic declaration of human rights. Both the 'Contents' and 'Criticisms' point this declaration as very critical. Although many of these points may be valid to us who don't necesarily believe in Islam, it does hold many aspects which are different and may be better to that of the UNDHR such as it bieng more community and equality oriented. --Clementduval 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 'ClementDuval' completely ignores the universal quality if the 'universal human rights'. Pointing out that Islam is the only major world religion that fails to accept the Universal Human Rights as laid down as foundation of the United Nations organisation apears a massive, partisan manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.181.114 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions from Muslims?[edit]

I disagree. This entry itself and the writing is the par of excellence; however, if there are Muslims that can provide _any_ defense of the Cairo Declaration, he (heh) should add a new section. As it stands, this entry is undeniably factual and the reader will find it impossible to assign _any_ worth to the C. Declaration, since it can all be summed up as the tautology "Sharia Law is".

Content section very biased[edit]

The content section of this article is very biased. Instead of giving an overview of the delaration, it is constantly criticizing it. Critisms belong only in the "Criticism" section. Bless sins 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the article to the more flexible <ref> syntax, keeping your edits except for
The article however does say, in Article 1, "All men are equal in terms...without any discrimination on the basis of race...belief, sex, religion, political affiliation... ", and in Article 18, "Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents...".
as this is en:OR and/or POV countering Farouh Kazemi's position. You'll have to find notable sources who sustain your view. --tickle me 23:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have found notable sources: [1]. in addition this source is pretty reliable. All I'm doing is quoting a source. I am not adding a POV, nor am I suggesting that someones POV is incorrect.Bless sins 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The source that I had found and put into the "External links" section long before you began editing this article provides simply the declaration's text, not its analysis. Pecher Talk 08:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
WHose analyzing the source??? Have I made any attempt to analyze the source?? All I've done is quote the source.Bless sins 10:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The Cairo Declaration states "true religion" to be the "guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity". (In the Preamble) It DOES NOT say that the true religion is Islam. IF it does tell me where. IF crtics say that it does, then link to the critic.Bless sins 01:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The title of the document is the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. There are copious references to Islamic Law in the document; and the Arabic phrase 'true religion' has the colloquial meaning of Islam rather than religion in general. --Steelangel (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins. In case you have not noticed,the title of the declaration includes the words "in Islam". The declaraton is based on Shariya tribal laws with Islamic principles used throughout the declaration. Love, TheLittlestTerrorist (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Shirin Sinnar Quotation[edit]

A quotation appeared in this section that attributed to me a view that I do not hold; in fact, my article cited by the wikipedia entry explicitly rejects that view.

I have removed the quotation. If you'd like to see the original article, you can read it at http://web.archive.org/web/19991109075328/www.jaring.my/just/UNhr50An.html

Thanks, Shirin Sinnar

  • Just read your article, very interesting critique, thanks for pointing it out. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies[edit]

It seems that the declaration is inconsistent within itself, for example forbidding discrimination on the grounds of religion while discriminating against non-Muslims who would wish to hold public office. Can anyone find any sources that comment on this, as it seems important. 109.155.31.222 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    I believe the apparent internal discrepancies are explained by Article 25 of the Declaration; the Shari'ah is the source for all of the preceding articles.  Within the Shari'ah there is not a strict equality of men and women, nor of religions, nor of persons that are not muslim.  Close examination of Article 1 suggests that the non-discrimination language applies only to believers in Allah, men, and is only referring to "basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities".  The prior Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, London, 1981 is more explicit in this, indicating that there is no freedom in religion.--Wlubbe (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Structure and Criticism[edit]

As I was the one who recently restored the criticism section, I think it's only fair I weigh in on the discussion and explain my actions.

In terms of structure, I think this seems to look like a jumbled pile of quotes. Based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights page, I'm wondering if an outline of the overall document should be included. Also, as this document seems to be more of a response to the UDHR, I think that it is only fair for some amount of compare and contrast to be allowed.

As for criticism, just because someone doesn't agree with something doesn't automatically make it untrue. Criticism is completely natural, and deleting the entire section only makes said editor seem weak . As for the post about criticism of this document being equatable with criticism of Sharia Law, I believe that is just an excuse to bring this into a debate about religion. The CDHRI imposes religious laws on people, regardless of their religion. By interfering with non-Muslims, or even Muslims who don't agree with it, this document has waved it's right to be called a religious document.

StTheo (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

contradiction to quran[edit]

how can this be presented as 'in islam'.

this is understandably at least in part inkeeping with shariah law, which itself is at least in part based on the hadith.

however, a fair proportion of its contents disagree with the quran directly. eg legitimate slavery by beneficient/benevolent masters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (added name)80.3.154.152 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The title of the source material is "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam." To leave out part of the title would seem to be to be remiss. Your personal feelings about Islam don't have any bearing on the actual title of the document, as Wikipedia isn't a place for opinion. Neuralsim (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources[edit]

One editor has added this text : "In other words punishment by death sentences for breaking the rules of sharia are allowed".

He has sourced this [2]. But the given page doesn't say what the author has added. Could he please explain himself?

Wheatsing (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Which countries sign the Cairo Declaration?[edit]

Which countries sign the Cairo Declaration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.95.57.173 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Al Quran[edit]

Allah has given Quran as a cod of life. After death there is a eternal life. Hell and paradise are distinguishing there. No body enter the paradise with out follow the Quaran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.153.28.58 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously your opinion, and just as obviously therefore, has no place on Wikipedia. There are a lot of different places where this sort of opinion is welcomed, for example in a mosque. Neuralsim (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)