“We still define human rights in the country in the context of Islam and the Shariah”
International Business Times reports:
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexual human rights are not guaranteed, nor will they be upheld in Malaysia.
Prime Minister Najib Razak said at an international Islamic moderation seminar 2015 in Bangi, Selangor that his administration will do its best to uphold human rights but only within the confines of Islam.
This is in line with the Islamic teaching of balance and moderation (wasatiyyah), he said, adding that Muslim Malaysia cannot defend the more “extreme aspect of human rights”, citing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexual rights for example.
Of course. That’s the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. You can have human rights but only so far as they comply with sharia. I wrote a whole chapter on that in Does God Hate Women?
If you haven’t read the Cairo Declaration, I recommend doing so.
“Although universal human rights have been defined, we still define human rights in the country in the context of Islam and the Shariah,” he said, according to the Malay Mail.
“Even though it is difficult to defend internationally, we must defend our definition of human rights,” the website Malaysiakini said.
“And even if we cannot defend human rights at an international level, we must defend it in the Islamic context,” he told the seminar.
Islam trumps universal human rights. Sharia trumps universal human rights. The Cairo Declaration trumps universal human rights.
Human Rights Watch’s Asia deputy director Phil Robertson later told a news conference that he was shocked by Najib’s promise to uphold human rights only within the Islamic context saying that Kuala Lumpur should withdraw from the United Nations if the government was not serious about upholding human rights for all.
Is the Cairo Declaration news to Phil Robertson? It can’t be; he must know all about it. But then his surprise seems odd. Malaysia is far from the only country that considers itself bound by the Cairo Declaration.
“We define human rights in the context of no human rights.”
Erm, what?
Could it be construed as a microstep forward that this hopeless double dealer can’t just reject human rights? He has to use the words even when he refuses to have anything to do with them?
No, they’ve been doing that all along. If you look at the Cairo Declaration, that’s what they do throughout – say “yes human rights” but then add “unless it contradicts Sharia.” It’s utter bullshit but it’s what they do.
Sounds like Germany in the 30s
Christ on a cracker. Reminds me of the “Healthy Forests Initiative” (Reagan? one of the Bushies?) to allow more clearcutting, only hideously worse.
That’s not human rights.
I mean, you could have human rights but only as defined by Aztec law which means if there’s a drought, a few tens of thousands of POWs get their hearts ripped out of their chests to appease the hummingbird war/storm god.
Human rights either exist independently of arbitrary cultural rules or they don’t exist.
Torqumada explained thus, “We respect human rights within the context of the Inquisition. We cannot, of course, accept *extreme* human rights, such as witchcraft, Judaism, or heresy. Once someone has renounced their sins, we even respect their right to go do heaven as soon as possible, through immediate execution to ensure against backsliding.”