Truth About Islam

🧭 Human Rights as a Mask

How Islamic States Manipulate International Norms

Introduction: The Double Discourse

In international forums, Islamic states often present themselves as defenders of “human rights.” They sign UN conventions, draft national constitutions that mention freedoms, and participate in global dialogues on human dignity, justice, and equality.

But this participation is often disingenuous.

Behind the curtain, many of these same states enforce legal systems and policies that directly contradict the universal human rights framework. They do not reject the language of rights—but they redefine it according to Islamic law (sharīʿa) and theological norms.

This post will unpack the rhetorical duplicity, legal contradictions, and strategic motives behind this dual discourse, revealing a deliberate effort to subvert universal human rights while maintaining international legitimacy.

1. 📜 The Cairo Declaration: Codifying the Loophole

In 1990, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) issued the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, a document that mimics the structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but with a critical difference:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharīʿa.” (Article 24)

This single clause nullifies any universal standard. The document affirms rights—but only as interpreted within Islamic law. This includes:

No freedom of religion: apostasy is punishable.
No gender equality: women have unequal legal status.
No free speech: blasphemy and heresy are criminal.
No LGBTQ+ rights: same-sex relations are criminalized or punishable by death.

Far from being a rights document, the Cairo Declaration is a religious manifesto designed to reframe human rights through the lens of theocracy—a move that effectively renders global norms moot under the guise of cultural sovereignty.

2. ⚖️ The Institutional Game: Ratifying Treaties, With Reservations

Many Islamic-majority countries have ratified international human rights treaties, such as:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

But they do so with broad reservations, often along these lines:

“Subject to the provisions of Islamic law.”

This allows them to opt out of any clause they find religiously unacceptable—turning treaties into symbolic gestures, not binding commitments. In practice:

Saudi Arabia reserves the right to apply ḥudūd punishments (e.g., amputations, stoning).
Iran denies religious freedom and executes apostates.
Pakistan maintains death penalties for blasphemy and criminalizes Ahmadis.
Sudan (pre-2020) used Islamic law to restrict women’s dress and criminalize apostasy.

These contradictions are not anomalies—they are systemic and doctrinal.

3. 🎭 The Performance of Legitimacy

Why do Islamic states even bother to engage with human rights discourse?

The answer is strategic legitimacy.

International Standing: Playing the “human rights” game allows regimes to avoid pariah status, gain development aid, and engage in global institutions.
Moral Counter-Narrative: By redefining human rights as “Islamic,” these regimes frame Western norms as colonial or decadent, while promoting their own version of moral order.
Defensive Obfuscation: When criticized for abuses, they respond with:
- “These are our cultural values.”
- “You don’t understand Islam.”
- “Your rights are not universal.”

This is not a clash of interpretations—it’s a clash of foundations.

4. 🛑 Human Rights Violations as Policy, Not Accident

The illiberal policies in Islamic states are not the result of corrupt governance or misapplication. They are often the intentional and consistent outgrowth of Islamic legal norms:

Domain	Liberal Norm	Islamic State Policy (examples)
Freedom of Religion	Belief and disbelief equally protected	Apostasy laws in Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia
Gender Equality	Equal legal and civil status	Male guardianship, unequal inheritance
LGBTQ+ Rights	Protection from discrimination	Criminalization and execution (Iran, Mauritania)
Artistic and Press Freedom	Expression protected unless harmful	Censorship, blasphemy laws, state religion oversight
Legal Pluralism	Secular courts for all	Dual-track sharīʿa systems for Muslims

These violations are often defended on religious grounds. Leaders, clerics, and judges cite Qur’an, hadith, and classical jurists—not just national interest.

5. 🧠 The Psychology of Religious Absolutism

At the root of the contradiction lies Islamic theological absolutism:

Islam is the final and perfect religion.
Sharīʿa is the eternal law of God.
Man-made laws are inferior or even blasphemous.

This worldview does not recognize external moral standards. Any human rights framework not derived from revelation is suspect. This leads to two outcomes:

Rejectionist Theories: Some Islamist thinkers (e.g. Sayyid Qutb, al-Mawdudi) reject human rights as a Western tool of domination.
Reformist Apologetics: Others selectively reinterpret rights language to simulate compatibility—without changing the substance.

But both remain within the framework of divine supremacy, not moral pluralism.

6. ⚖️ Case Studies: Theocratic Laws Dressed as “Justice”

Saudi Arabia: "Islamic Justice System"

Enforces public beheadings, amputations, and gender segregation.
Claims to uphold “human dignity” through Islamic justice.
Ratified the UN Convention Against Torture—with a reservation to apply Sharīʿa.

Iran: "Islamic Republic of Human Rights"

Publicly touts women’s “modesty” as empowerment.
Executes apostates and homosexuals.
Reframes repression as “moral order,” protected under Islamic law.

Pakistan: "Islamic Republic with Democratic Values"

Guarantees religious freedom in its constitution.
But criminalizes Ahmadi beliefs and permits blasphemy executions.
Justifies contradictions as “protecting the honor of Islam.”

7. 📢 The Real Consequence: Human Lives Destroyed

This legal-theological duplicity is not just theoretical—it destroys lives.

Asia Bibi: A Christian woman nearly executed in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy.
Saman Naseem: A teenager in Iran sentenced to death for “enmity against God.”
Raif Badawi: A Saudi blogger sentenced to lashes and imprisonment for advocating secularism.

In each case, the regime defended its actions as legally and morally justified under Islam—even while proclaiming commitment to human rights.

Conclusion: Rhetoric vs. Reality

Islamic states selectively use human rights language as a diplomatic shield—not because they believe in its principles, but because they need the international legitimacy it brings.

But the internal reality remains grounded in a legal system that:

Denies universal freedom of belief and conscience.
Enforces gender and religious hierarchies.
Criminalizes dissent and difference.

The contradiction is not accidental—it is structural, intentional, and unsolvable unless one system yields to the other.

Until Islamic states renounce sharīʿa supremacy and adopt universal norms without caveats, their participation in human rights discourse is not a sign of progress—but a performance of compliance.