چکیده:
This paper advances a framework for the evaluation of Sharia (Islamic law) with respect to the modern notion of international human rights law. The paper argues that certain universal standards of human rights and freedoms, as understood and formulated in international human rights documents, lack precise equivalents in Islamic law, and some generally-accepted principles of Sharia contradict corresponding principles of international human rights law. Sharia's response to the idea of human rights and traditional interpretation of Islamic law are hard to reconcile with international human rights norms and standards. It is also argued that the application of Sharia, public and criminal law in particular, is problematic and results in deficiencies and hardship in Muslim societies. This paper contributes to the debate on Islamic reformism and human rights in arguing that Sharia's contradiction of universal human rights norms cannot be avoided, and that traditional mechanisms of reform within the framework of Sharia are inadequate for achieving the necessary degree of reform. It is suggested that, based on a cross-cultural dialogue and intellectual debate, an essential and primary reform should define the objective foundations of human rights in reason and human dignity, not on Sharia criteria and qualifications.
در این مقاله چارچوبی برای ارزیابی شریعت در قانون اسلامی به توجه به حقوق بشر بین‌المللی ارائه می‌شود. در این مقاله چنین استدلال می‌شود که برخی از معیارهای جهانی حقوق بشر و آزادی‌ها، بر اساس آنچه که در اسناد بین‌المللی حقوق بشر درک و تدوین شده است، فاقد معادل دقیق در قوانین اسلامی هستند و برخی از اصول پذیرفته شده شریعت با اصول متناظر در حقوق بشر بین‌المللی مغایرت دارد. پاسخ شریعت به ایده حقوق بشر و تفسیر سنتی قانون اسلامی به سختی با هنجارها و موازین بین‌المللی حقوق بشر سازگار است. همچنین ادعا می شود که اجرای شریعت و به طور خاص قوانین عمومی و کیفری، مشکل ساز است و منجر به ناکارایی و سختی در جوامع اسلامی می‌شود. این مقاله به بحث در مورد اصلاح طلبی اسلامی و حقوق بشر کمک می‌کند تا بتواند از تناقض شریعت با موازین بین‌المللی حقوق بشر جلوگیری کند و چنین بیان می‌کند که سازوکارهای سنتی اصلاحات در چارچوب شریعت برای دستیابی به درجه لازم اصلاحات کافی نیست. پیشنهاد می‌شود که برای یک گفتگوی بین فرهنگی و یک بحث فکری، یک اصلاح اولیه و اساسی باید مبانی عینی حقوق بشر در عقل و کرامت انسانی را تعریف کند و نه بر اساس معیارها و مدارک شرعی.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Introduction The present article here argues that certain universal standards of human rights and freedoms, as understood and formulated in international human rights documents, lack precise equivalents in Islamic law, and some generally-accepted principles of Shari’a contradict corresponding principles of international human rights law.
” (Sajoo, 1990: 26) All these components support the study’s overall argument that Shari’a lacks the modern notion of human rights and freedoms, as documented in international human rights law, and reveals the incompatibility between individual and collectivity-oriented concepts- which, in turn, derives from the conflict between, as Tibi notes, “man (reason)-centered and a cosmological theocentric view of the world.
Since Muslim jurists generally claim that Shari’a is a comprehensive system for universal human rights (see Chapter Two) and applicable to all societies, regardless of their cultural variety, the argument of Islamic states for the cultural relativity of human rights seems incompatible with that claim.
First, it should be pointed out that most of the states that support the idea of cultural relativism in human rights issue tend to be undemocratic and repressive, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, and, in the Islamic context, regardless of whether or not they apply Shari’a laws.
Muslim scholars should then “call for the establishment of a new principle of interpretation,” (An-Na’im, 1990B) in order to make Shari’a laws more compatible with international human rights norms and standards.
Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law, New York: Syracuse University Press.
(
, 
, 
)
