Why Islamic Countries Did Not Sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Amidst the global push for human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. However, not all nations embraced this document wholeheartedly. This article explores the reasons why some Islamic countries, despite their overwhelming Muslim populations, did not sign the UDHR, focusing on the cases of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as well as the broader context of Sharia law and cultural resistance.
Case Studies: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
When the UDHR was drafted and adopted in 1948, it faced varying levels of support and opposition among Muslim-majority nations. Among these, Turkey, with its secular state and predominant Muslim populace, signed the UDHR in 1948 as the religiously diverse nation that it is. However, Saudi Arabia decided to abstain from ratifying the declaration, citing that it violated Sharia law.
1. Saudi Arabia's Position
In 1948, Saudi Arabia’s abstention from the vote is notable. The kingdom, which is an absolute monarchy governed by Islamic Sharia law, maintained that the UDHR principles were incompatible with the country's religious and legal system. This decision was not just a one-off; Saudi Arabia has a long history of resisting and challenging Western-led international human rights norms.
2. Pakistan's Position
In contrast, Pakistan, which also signed the UDHR, took a different stance. It disagreed with Saudi Arabia's interpretation and criticized its position. A key figure in this debate was Pakistani minister Zafarullah Khan, who argued strongly for the inclusion of freedom of religion in the UDHR. Khan's argument highlighted the tension between maintaining Islamic orthodoxy and aligning with international human rights norms.
Broader Context and Scholarly Concerns
The decision of some Islamic countries not to sign the UDHR was not due to a lack of empathy towards human rights but rather a complex interplay of cultural, religious, and political factors. A number of scholars have expressed concerns about the alleged Western bias in the UDHR, suggesting that its values and principles may not be universally applicable. This emphasis on universality can sometimes clash with the specificity and nuance of local legal and religious systems.
For example, the issue of religious freedom and Indonesia’s stance have shown that the application of human rights in predominantly Muslim countries often requires careful consideration of cultural and religious contexts.
Alternative Islamic Declarations of Human Rights
While the UDHR was adopted by the global community, some Islamic countries developed their own versions of the declaration. One notable document is the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR). This document asserts that Islam itself provides a comprehensive framework for human rights, which is seen as a complete and already existing constitution.
The UIDHR aligns with Sharia law in many respects, particularly in matters of personal freedoms and social norms. For instance, it states that every Muslim has the right to freely move in and out of any Muslim country, which can be seen as a reflection of the long-standing principles of the Islamic ummah (community). This highlights the differences in how different cultures and legal systems interpret and implement human rights principles.
Interestingly, the UIDHR and the UDHR have different versions when translated into Arabic. Some scholars argue that the Arabic version of the UIDHR more accurately reflects the intended scope and inclusivity of human rights, whereas the English version is perceived as carrying a bias.
Conclusion
The decision of some Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia and others, not to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a rejection of human rights but a reflection of the complex relationship between global human rights norms and local cultural and religious values. While the UDHR has universal aspirations, its implementation and interpretation must take into account the diverse legal and cultural landscapes of different countries. The development of alternative Islamic declarations of human rights demonstrates the ongoing dialogue within and between cultures to ensure that human rights are relevant and applicable to all.