Islam and Justice: Debating the Future of Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa

CIAO DATE: 1/99

January 1997

To order a copy of the full text of this report and other publications of the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights follow this link: http://www.lchr.org/pubs/pubs.htm#MIDDLE

Background and Introduction

The continuing conflicts between entrenched authoritarian governments and political movements inspired by Islam have had a devastating impact on respect for human rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Competition and contention between opposing political ideologies is unavoidable. However, this report focuses on the common objective of people of differing, and sometimes opposing, political and religious views to find practical ways to overcome entrenched patterns of injustice and human rights violations in the region. The role of international human rights law as the instrument of reform is the particular focus of this book.

The discussions presented in Islam and Justice took place during a conference held on May 7 - 9, 1996 in England. The meeting brought together a diverse group of activists and professionals who share a professed concern for human rights promotion and protection in the Middle East and North Africa region. For some, the Middle East is a part of their broader global activities in the field of human rights protection and promotion. For others, the region, or selected countries within it, is the sole focus of their human rights activism. Some promote human rights from voluntary or enforced exile, while others are involved with human rights groups operating in the countries of the region.

A controversial aspect of the meeting was the involvement of individuals associated with Islamist political movements among the participants. It was the organizers' intention to demonstrate that those who base their political actions on religious concepts can, and indeed must, play a part in the debate about the implementation of international human rights standards in the Middle East. Human rights are not, nor could they be, the sole preserve of secularists, or of any one religion. If international human rights standards are to live up to the universality to which they lay claim, and on which much of their legitimacy is grounded, their relevance must be demonstrated in practice in all places.

The debate presented here demonstrates emphatically the pertinence of basic standards contained in international human rights law to protagonists of differing views in the controversy engendered by the emergence of political Islam as a major factor in contemporary Middle Eastern politics. This report aims to contribute to the debate about the place of human rights as a framework for the behavior of all parties, and to promote the implementation of international human rights standards as the best available safeguard of the rights and freedoms of people living in the region.

The participants were conscious of the many problems confronting them, but aware of the urgent need for all those who call for human rights in the region to operate within the framework of a common understanding of basic human rights concepts. They gathered to seek consensus on the minimum standards necessary for a fair trial, and to explore strategies for the better application of this fundamental safeguard in the countries of the region. Underlying the discussion, which proved to be rich and wide-ranging, was a shared aspiration that the implementation of mutually agreed upon human rights standards would form a basis on which progress could be made towards social peace and political development.

As is clear from the discussion, the right to fair trial is a safeguard by which many other basic freedoms are upheld and protected. This safeguard comprises many elements both within the narrow limits of the procedures of a criminal trial, and the broader socio-political context in which justice is administered.

Chapter One

Drawing on examples from Morocco, Sudan and Iran, the chapter highlights particular problems which emerge in the context of Islamized legal systems with regard to the uniform application of the law. Some participants raise the objection that under Islamic law there is insufficient certainty about which actions may constitute an offense under the law.

Chapter Two

Chapter Two presents discussion of obstacles to the provision of fair trial safeguards in four countries: Sudan, Iran, Egypt and Morocco. The way in which the human rights records of the self- proclaimed Islamic republics of Iran and Sudan are described by different participants is a bone of contention in the chapter and throughout the meeting. Broadly speaking, for one side in this debate these states have intrinsic flaws in their constitutions, basic laws and systems of governance that militate against respect for human rights and the rule of law. For the other side, while acknowledging that both systems have their faults, there is an insistence that positive aspects of each country's record should be acknowledged, and from some a suggestion that the Iranian and Sudanese experiences are useful experiments from which something can be learned.

Away from contentious debate about specific country situations in which several participants have deep personal involvement, questions are raised about whether it is possible to distinguish supposedly Islamic rule in Sudan and Iran from other forms of authoritarian and despotic rule to be found in the region.

There is also a debate about whether the underlying causes of human rights violations are cultural or political. Several participants express the view that attributing human rights violations to culture is dangerous because it can quickly become an excuse or even a justification for the persistence of abuse. Nevertheless, the point is raised that cultural attitudes differ widely, even within the same country, on such matters as the role of women or freedom of speech. The question then is how to bring about change in deep-seated cultural attitudes that may be at variance with international standards.

Chapter Three

Chapter Three opens with a spirited challenge to "the myth that the West invented human rights." Various nuances and qualifications are presented to this thesis in the discussion that follows, including a strong reaffirmation that while the West may have played the leading role in the legal codification of international standards, the ethical basis for human rights is abundantly present in Muslim and Middle Eastern cultures. However, there is an insistence that in the concept of rights which are due to every human being by virtue of that person's humanity there is an important departure from Islamic traditions of rights existing as a product of membership in a particular category of religion or gender. How to bridge that divide, in the view of that participant, is a fundamental question in seeking to harmonize Islamist views on human rights with international human rights instruments. While acknowledging that "we have the resources in those cultural traditions," he argues strongly that simple atavism will not bring about respect for human rights in Muslim societies.

Chapter Four

Chapter Four returns to a more empirically focused debate about the problems that have confronted the regional human rights movement in its efforts to implement human rights protections. The challenges of politicization and of elitism are addressed, and the extent to which the movement may be said to have failed because of the stark reality of non-implementation of human rights protections throughout much of the region. The discussion compares the experiences of the Moroccan and Palestinian human rights movements and there is disagreement among participants on the extent to which these movements may be said to have developed links to the community. The discussion concludes with the observation that much remains to be done to make the local human rights movement credible to the people of the region as an instrument through which to remedy violations of their rights.

Chapter Five

Chapter Five begins with a strongly worded exchange between two participants in which both parties object to the way in which they are referred to in the discourse of the other group. One party accuses the other of "rampant Machiavellianism," while the other responds with charges of double standards, selectivity and misrepresentation. In a way this chapter presents a microcosm of the underlying purpose of the meeting because it demonstrates deep mutual distrust between distinct groups which in theory share much common ground in their criticisms of the lack of respect for human rights by the governments of the region. These disagreements are not petty. When a participant objects to being accused of being "against Islam," we must concede that such an accusation may lead in some quarters to a belief, and a willingness to act on the belief, that it is permissible to shed his blood with impunity. Similarly an assumption that by definition all Islamists must be by their nature disingenuous is clearly not conducive to dialogue.

The importance of this chapter, and of the meeting as a whole, is not that it has resolved these deeply entrenched disagreements. But, it is a practical demonstration that it is possible to move beyond these differences to discuss vital issues of importance to Middle Eastern societies as a whole. The chapter contains several thoughtful interventions about the nature of the dialogue between Islamists and others, recognizing the need for each to recognize the other and for there to be a mutual assimilation of values. The tendency of politics in the region to be a "discourse that negates the other" is lamented, and the need for the acceptance of a set of minimum standards, or even a code of conduct, regulating political and ideological competition is put forward.

Chapter Six

Chapter Six has at its core a dialogue between two participants about how to bring about change in Islamic Law. One participant calls for a "paradigm shift," abandoning the codified principles of textual exegesis (usul al-fiqh) in order to bring about change, while another, citing examples from her own experience, asserts that it is possible—and far preferable—to bring about change working within existing frameworks. Echoing the concerns of Chapter Five, a participant remarks that the concern of human rights activists must be whether both of these advocates of reform, working on the basis of divergent premises, will be able to continue their work in security.

Taken as a whole, the report makes a contribution to a process by which areas of commonality in understanding of human rights standards between Islamists and others concerned with the promotion of international human rights standards in the region, can be explored, and where they exist, emphasized. We believe that such a process can help to demonstrate the invalidity of efforts to dilute the protective efficacy of international norms by reference to cultural relativism, or by expedient abuse of the language of human rights standards. Talking about human rights with people from Middle Eastern societies outside of the small community of committed human rights activists is vital to the task of international human rights enforcement in the region. Many interventions by participants serve to emphasize the importance of such a task in the months and years ahead to the future of Middle Eastern law, politics and society.