Truth About Islam

Human Rights, Secular Democracy, and International Law

Can They Coexist with Islamic Theology?

Introduction: The Collision of Two Worlds

The modern world is built on pillars of universal human rights, democratic governance, and international law—ideals enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), secular constitutions, and global institutions like the United Nations.

Islam, however, is not a secular ideology but a comprehensive theocratic system. It is law-based, revelation-centered, and global in ambition. At its core lies sharīʿa (Islamic law)—a divinely ordained system meant to govern all aspects of life, both public and private.

This post examines the fundamental question:

Can the Islamic worldview, as derived from its own sources, genuinely embrace modern concepts like universal human rights, secular democracy, and international law—or must it necessarily redefine, resist, or replace them?

1. Human Rights vs. Divine Law: The Incompatibility Problem

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is built on ideas of:

Individual autonomy and freedom of conscience
Equality before the law regardless of religion, gender, or belief
Freedom of expression—even against religion
Freedom to change one’s religion or belief

Each of these conflicts directly with Islamic legal-theological norms:

A. Freedom of Religion

Qur’an 3:85 – “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted.”
Apostasy (ridda) is punishable by death in all four Sunni schools of law.
Article 18 of the UDHR (freedom to change religion) is explicitly rejected by Islamic jurisprudence.

B. Gender Equality

Men are guardians over women (Qur’an 4:34).
A woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man (Qur’an 2:282).
Inheritance favors male heirs (Qur’an 4:11).
Sharia family law enforces patriarchy, polygamy, unequal rights, and male dominance.

C. Equality of All Beliefs and Peoples

Islam divides the world into believers (mu’minūn) and non-believers (kāfirūn).
Non-Muslims are subordinate in law (dhimmīs).
Qur’an 9:29 mandates a jizya tax and humiliation for non-Muslims.
Islam does not grant full civic or spiritual equality to non-Muslims.

D. Freedom of Speech

Blasphemy against Muhammad or the Qur’an is a capital offense in many Islamic legal systems.
The concept of "hurting religious sentiments" overrides the right to critique or satirize religion.
Qur’an 33:57–61 threatens punishment for those who offend the Prophet.

Conclusion: Islamic law does not align with the UDHR’s vision. Instead, it asserts a divinely legislated, unequal, and theocratic structure that replaces the need for man-made rights systems.

2. Secular Democracy vs. Theocracy: Islam’s Rejection of Separation

A. Islam Rejects the Separation of Mosque and State

In Islam, religion and state are unified (dīn wa dawla).
The Prophet Muhammad was both a spiritual leader and a head of state.
Classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) covers all aspects of governance: taxation, warfare, contracts, judiciary, public morality, etc.

B. Legislation Belongs to God Alone

Qur’an 5:44: “Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—they are the disbelievers.”
Qur’an 6:57: “Judgment belongs only to Allah.”
Islamic jurisprudence treats human legislation as invalid unless derived from sharīʿa.

C. Voting vs. Divine Command

In democracy, the people decide law.
In Islam, God has already spoken through the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Islam permits consultation (shūrā), but within the bounds of divine revelation.

D. Majority Rule Cannot Override Revelation

If the majority votes to legalize homosexuality, apostasy, or alcohol—Islam rejects the vote.
Democracy is conditional and subordinate in Islamic thought—not sovereign.

Conclusion: Islam’s governing principle is theocracy, not secular democracy. The idea of sovereignty of the people contradicts Islam’s claim that sovereignty belongs to God.

3. International Law: Islam as a Rival, Not a Participant

A. Islamic International Law (Siyar) Precedes the UN

Early jurists like al-Shaybānī and al-Māwardī developed a theology of war, treaties, and peace.
The world is divided into Dār al-Islām (abode of Islam) and Dār al-Ḥarb (abode of war).
Treaties with non-Muslim states are temporary, not permanent (based on Qur’an 8:61 and 9:1–4).

B. Islamic Treaties Are Conditional

Agreements with unbelievers are voidable if Islam is harmed.
Treaties cannot permanently prevent the spread of Islam by mission, influence, or force.

C. International Law Based on Human Reason Is Illegitimate

Islam views human institutions (like the UN or ICC) as inferior to divine law.
If international law contradicts sharīʿa, Islam mandates disobedience.

D. Examples of Conflict

Blasphemy and free speech: International law protects expression; Islamic law forbids it.
Women’s rights: UN treaties advocate equality; Islamic law enforces gender roles.
Criminal law: International law forbids amputations or stoning; Islamic law mandates them under certain conditions.

Conclusion: Islam recognizes no permanent global order except the future victory of Islam. International law is tolerated only as a temporary necessity, not as a principled commitment.

4. Islamic Attempts to Redefine Modern Concepts: Cosmetic or Genuine?

To bridge the chasm between Islamic law and the modern world, some Muslim thinkers have:

Proposed "Islamic human rights" charters (e.g., Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, 1990).
Advocated Islamic democracy—not as secularism, but as shūrā within sharīʿa.
Promoted Maṣlaḥa (public welfare) or Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿa (objectives of the law) to allow selective reinterpretation.

However, these reinterpretations:

Always stop short of abrogating core commands like apostasy laws or gender hierarchy.
Subordinate rights to revelation.
Maintain the supremacy of Islamic law over any external framework.

The Cairo Declaration, for instance, grants rights only insofar as they do not contradict sharīʿa—which renders them void in many modern contexts.

Conclusion: These adaptations are apologetic and strategic, not substantive. They attempt to cloak incompatibility under semantic rebranding.

Final Analysis: Can Islam Be Reconciled with Modernity?

The answer depends on the standard of reconciliation:

If reconciliation means replacing divine law with secular norms:
→ Islam cannot reconcile. That would negate its own authority.
If reconciliation means selective reinterpretation under strict control of the scholars:
→ Possible, but at the cost of intellectual honesty and theological integrity.
If reconciliation means redefining modern concepts to match Islamic terms:
→ Cosmetic at best, deceptive at worst.

Islamic theology, as it stands in Qur’an, Hadith, and classical fiqh, does not and cannot affirm true secularism, full human rights, or binding international law.

Any claim to the contrary is either theologically dishonest or politically evasive.

📌 Reader Challenge

If you believe this post misrepresents Islam’s actual stance:

Cite primary Islamic sources (Qur’an, authentic Hadith, major fiqh works) that affirm universal human rights, secular democracy, or binding international norms.
Show where Islamic law grants equal rights to apostates, women, or non-Muslims.
Demonstrate, with evidence, how Islamic law has permanently adopted modern values without contradiction or reinterpretation.

Until such evidence is presented, the conclusion remains:

Islam does not embrace human rights—it redefines them. It does not submit to democracy—it reorders it. It does not abide by international law—it tolerates it while plotting its replacement.