Truth About Islam

Islam and Human Rights

Why 50 Years of Debate Cannot Mask the Irreconcilable Divide

Introduction: The Academic Smokescreen

For half a century, academics have tried to soften the reality that Islam, in its foundational texts and jurisprudence, is fundamentally at odds with universal human rights. Hashemi and Qureshi’s “Islam and Human Rights: A 50 Year Retrospective” is the latest example of this effort. It reviews decades of debate but ultimately shields Islam from responsibility, blaming colonialism, authoritarianism, and “context” for human rights abuses in Muslim-majority societies.

This is an intellectual smokescreen. The problem is not colonial trauma or political oppression. The problem is the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sharia system built on them. These sources explicitly enshrine apostasy executions, blasphemy punishments, gender inequality, slavery, and cruel corporal penalties. Fifty years of scholarship has not resolved these contradictions — because they are irreconcilable.

This critique dismantles the article’s apologetic framing in six steps: (1) exposing its selective history, (2) showing how it shifts blame away from Islam, (3) highlighting the centrality of the Cairo Declaration, (4) proving the so-called “contextual” violence is doctrinal, (5) unmasking the myth of reform, and (6) concluding with the unavoidable reality: Islam and human rights are structurally incompatible.

1. Selective History and Romanticized Origins

Hashemi and Qureshi highlight Muslim participation in drafting the UDHR in 1948, pointing to figures like Shaista Ikramullah, who defended women’s rights. But this is cherry-picking. They ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia abstained from the UDHR vote, explicitly rejecting provisions on religious freedom and gender equality. Why? Because apostasy and patriarchal family laws are not aberrations — they are embedded in Islam.

The authors romanticize Islam’s early history as relatively tolerant, citing the dhimmi system as “protection.” In reality, dhimmis (Jews and Christians under Islamic rule) were forced into second-class status:

Paying the humiliating jizya tax (Q 9:29).
Forbidden to build new houses of worship.
Excluded from authority over Muslims.
Living under perpetual threat of punishment for “insulting” Islam.

This was not protection — it was legalized subjugation. To present this as an early form of pluralism is historical revisionism.

2. Shifting the Blame: Colonialism and Authoritarianism

A central theme of the article is that human rights abuses in Muslim-majority countries are products of colonial disruption and authoritarian regimes, not Islam itself. This is a convenient deflection.

Colonialism did not invent Qur’an 4:34, which tells men to beat disobedient wives. Colonialism did not write Qur’an 5:38, commanding amputation for theft. Colonialism did not put in the Hadith: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (Bukhari 9:84:57). These were in the Islamic canon long before European imperialism.

Authoritarian rulers may have exploited Islam, but the legal tools of oppression — apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, gender restrictions — are not inventions of dictators. They are direct applications of Sharia. To claim otherwise is like saying the Inquisition was merely “political misuse of Christianity” while ignoring the doctrinal basis in canon law.

3. The Cairo Declaration: Islam’s True Face

In 1990, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. This document affirmed human dignity — but subordinated all rights to Sharia. What does this mean in practice?

No freedom of religion: apostasy remains a crime.
No freedom of speech: blasphemy is criminalized.
No gender equality: rights framed within “family values,” meaning male guardianship.
No protection from cruel punishment: hudud penalties are divinely mandated.

Hashemi and Qureshi acknowledge this but downplay its significance. In reality, the Cairo Declaration is not a side-note — it is the clearest modern statement of Islam’s stance on rights. It shows that when Muslim states collectively define “human rights,” they produce a framework fundamentally incompatible with universality.

4. Contextual Excuses vs. Doctrinal Realities

The authors argue that violent interpretations of Islam — like those of ISIS or al-Qaeda — are products of political oppression, prisons, and wars, not Islam itself. But ISIS did not pull its slavery practices, crucifixions, and executions out of thin air. It cited Qur’an and Hadith explicitly:

Enslaving Yazidi women: justified by Qur’an 4:3 and 33:50.
Crucifixion for enemies: Qur’an 5:33.
Execution for apostasy: Bukhari 9:84:57.
Stoning for adultery: Hadith in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.

When ISIS revived slavery in the 21st century, it was not distorting Islam — it was reviving practices Muhammad himself endorsed. The “context” argument collapses here. Poverty and authoritarianism may have created grievances, but the methods of repression came directly from Islamic scripture.

5. The Myth of Reform

The article highlights reformist scholars (Abou El Fadl, An-Na’im) and feminist movements in Tunisia, Morocco, and Iran as signs that Islam can align with human rights. But these examples prove the opposite.

Tunisia advanced women’s rights in 1956 — but still enforces unequal inheritance laws based on Qur’an 4:11.
Morocco reformed family law in 2004 — but homosexuality remains criminalized under Islamic morality laws.
Indonesia embraces democracy — but prosecutes citizens for “blasphemy” against Islam.

Even the most reformist states cannot fully escape the weight of Sharia. Why? Because reform requires contradicting the Qur’an and Hadith. Genuine equality for women would mean rejecting Qur’an 4:11 and 4:34. Freedom of religion would mean discarding Bukhari 9:84:57. Freedom of speech would mean abolishing Qur’an 33:57–61. But orthodox Islam holds these texts to be the infallible word of God.

Thus, reform is always half-measured, cosmetic, or explicitly secular. It is not Islam evolving; it is Islam being overridden.

6. Islam and Human Rights: An Irreconcilable Clash

The comparison between Islam and universal human rights is not a dialogue between equals — it is a collision between opposites.

Human Rights: All humans equal in dignity and rights.
Islam: Men superior to women (Q 4:34). Muslims superior to non-Muslims (Q 9:29). Free superior to slave.
Human Rights: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Islam: Apostates must be killed (Bukhari 9:84:57).
Human Rights: Freedom of expression.
Islam: Blasphemers must be silenced (Q 33:57–61).
Human Rights: No torture or cruel punishment.
Islam: Amputation, flogging, crucifixion mandated by divine law (Q 5:33, Q 5:38, Q 24:2).
Human Rights: Equality regardless of sexual orientation.
Islam: Homosexuality condemned and punished with death in Hadith.

These are not peripheral tensions. They are core, structural incompatibilities.

7. Why the Debate Persists

If the incompatibility is so obvious, why has the debate persisted for fifty years? Because academics like Hashemi and Qureshi are committed to keeping Islam respectable in the global arena. They produce sophisticated apologies: Islam is not the problem, context is; violence is political, not doctrinal; reform is possible if we reinterpret.

But these arguments collapse under the weight of Islam’s texts and history. The persistence of the debate reflects not Islam’s flexibility, but the reluctance of academics to confront the uncomfortable truth: Islam, as it stands, cannot be reconciled with universal human rights without rejecting its foundational laws.

Conclusion: The Unavoidable Verdict

Hashemi and Qureshi’s retrospective provides a useful survey of the field but ultimately conceals more than it reveals. By shifting blame to colonialism and authoritarianism, by romanticizing history, and by overstating reform, they avoid the central contradiction: Sharia and universal human rights cannot coexist.

The last fifty years prove this beyond doubt. Where Sharia is enforced, human rights are violated. Where human rights are respected, Sharia is marginalized. The more a society is Islamic in law, the less it is free in practice.

The verdict is inescapable: Islam and human rights are not two partners in dialogue. They are rival systems locked in irreconcilable conflict. To uphold universal human rights requires rejecting Sharia, not reinterpreting it. Anything less is self-deception.