This Is Islam Uncovered

Islamic Law vs. Human Rights

The Clash Between Universality and Shari’ah Particularism

Introduction

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, stands as one of the most influential documents in modern history. It established the principle that every human being, by virtue of being human, is entitled to equal and inalienable rights. These rights transcend religion, culture, nationality, and gender. They are universal and indivisible.

But in 1990, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC, now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), comprising 56 Muslim-majority states, issued a counter-document: the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). While its defenders insist that it is not an alternative but rather a complement to the UDHR, the Cairo Declaration’s very structure, language, and purpose reveal it to be a competing framework, designed to subordinate universal human rights to the dictates of Islamic Shari’ah law.

The implications of this conflict are profound. On one side stands universality—human dignity that applies equally to all. On the other stands cultural and religious relativism, where rights are conditional, revocable, and restricted by divine law as interpreted by clerics. At stake is nothing less than the survival of a universal standard of human rights.

This essay will undertake a deep, unsparing analysis of the Cairo Declaration in relation to the UDHR, focusing on key areas of conflict: equality, religious freedom, freedom of expression, women’s rights, minority rights, and the very philosophy of rights. It will argue that the CDHRI cannot be reconciled with universality and that attempts to legitimize it within the United Nations system represent a grave threat to global human rights.

The Origins of Two Declarations

The UDHR was born out of the ashes of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was meant to ensure that never again would states hide behind cultural or national “exceptions” to justify atrocities. Its core principle is universality: all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights (Article 1).

The Cairo Declaration, by contrast, emerged in a very different context. Adopted in 1990 by OIC member states, it was explicitly designed to anchor human rights within Islam. Its preamble states that all rights and freedoms “are binding divine commandments,” and that Shari’ah is the sole source of reference for their interpretation. The Cairo Declaration does not build upon the UDHR but substitutes it with an Islamic framework.

The philosophical roots are therefore incompatible. The UDHR derives rights from human dignity; the CDHRI derives them from God as interpreted through Shari’ah. One is secular, universal, and non-derogable. The other is religious, particular, and conditional.

Complementary or Alternative?

In 2007, Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council insisted that the Cairo Declaration “is not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights. It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries.”

This claim collapses under scrutiny. Articles 24 and 25 of the Cairo Declaration leave no doubt:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”
“The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”

Far from complementing the UDHR, the Cairo Declaration overrides it. Where the UDHR guarantees rights unconditionally, the CDHRI makes them dependent on Shari’ah. Where the UDHR protects individuals, the CDHRI protects religion. Where the UDHR affirms freedom of belief and expression, the CDHRI restricts them.

The claim of complementarity is thus a diplomatic fig leaf. In practice, the CDHRI is a rival framework, crafted to shield Islamic states from accusations of human rights violations while entrenching religious law as the arbiter of rights.

Equality and Discrimination

At the heart of the UDHR lies equality: Article 1 declares that all humans are “free and equal in dignity and rights.” Article 2 prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sex, or other status.

The Cairo Declaration, however, undermines equality by subordinating it to Shari’ah. Under classical Shari’ah law:

Women inherit half the share of men.
A woman’s testimony in many contexts is worth half that of a man.
Non-Muslims face systemic discrimination, barred from certain offices and subjected historically to the dhimmi system of subordination.

Thus, while the Cairo Declaration may speak of human dignity in the abstract, its Shari’ah qualification guarantees inequality in practice. Articles that appear to protect rights are immediately hollowed out by the Shari’ah clause.

This is not a matter of cultural interpretation but of principle. Rights cannot be universal if they do not apply equally to women, non-Muslims, and dissenters. The Cairo Declaration institutionalizes inequality.

Religious Freedom Denied

Religious freedom is a cornerstone of the UDHR (Article 18), which explicitly guarantees the right to change one’s religion or belief. Without this, freedom of religion is meaningless.

The Cairo Declaration, by contrast, restricts religious freedom. Article 10 states:

“Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.”

At first glance, this appears to reject coercion. But in Islamic jurisprudence, the assumption is that Islam is the natural religion of humanity. Thus, conversion to Islam is valid, but conversion away from Islam is illegitimate—viewed as the result of ignorance or coercion. The practical effect is a prohibition of apostasy.

Indeed, in many OIC member states, apostasy is a crime punishable by imprisonment or even death. Blasphemy laws, also rooted in Shari’ah, further criminalize criticism of Islam. The Cairo Declaration provides cover for these practices, directly violating the UDHR guarantee of freedom of belief.

When Pakistan, speaking for the OIC in 2007, explicitly dissociated itself from recognizing the “right to change one’s religion or belief,” it underscored the irreconcilability of the Cairo framework with universal human rights.

Freedom of Expression Curtailed

The UDHR (Article 19) and ICCPR (Article 19) guarantee freedom of opinion and expression, subject only to narrow restrictions necessary for public order, security, or protection of others’ rights. The principle is clear: individuals must be free to criticize ideas, including religious ones.

The Cairo Declaration, however, subordinates expression to Shari’ah. Article 22 states:

“Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.”

Further, it declares that expression may not be used to “weaken faith.”

This is not freedom of expression but its negation. In practice, it bans speech critical of Islam, its laws, and its authorities. It provides justification for blasphemy laws, censorship, and the suppression of dissent.

The OIC’s repeated promotion of UN resolutions against “defamation of religions” illustrates how this logic is exported internationally. By shifting the focus from protecting individuals to protecting religions, these resolutions empower states to silence critics under the guise of human rights. The irony is staggering: human rights language is co-opted to undermine human rights themselves.

Women’s Rights: Hollow Promises

The UDHR makes no distinction between men and women in rights. Later conventions, like CEDAW (1979), reinforced this principle of full equality.

The Cairo Declaration pays lip service to women’s dignity but within Shari’ah constraints. Article 6 states: “Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.”

But this is immediately qualified: “The husband is responsible for the maintenance and welfare of the family.”

This phrasing cements the traditional patriarchal framework of Shari’ah, where a woman’s equality is limited and contingent. In practice, laws in many OIC states deny women full equality in marriage, divorce, inheritance, and legal testimony. The Cairo Declaration gives these discriminatory practices a shield of legitimacy.

Thus, what appears at first as an affirmation of women’s dignity is in fact a restatement of inequality, dressed in the language of rights.

Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights

Another fundamental difference lies in the object of protection. The UDHR protects individuals. The Cairo Declaration, however, shifts the focus to collective rights, particularly the protection of Islam itself.

This shift is most evident in the push for “defamation of religions” resolutions at the UN. Under the Cairo framework, religions are treated as entities with rights, and criticism is seen as an attack. But human rights exist to protect individuals, not ideas. No belief system is entitled to immunity from criticism.

By extending rights to religion itself, the Cairo Declaration transforms human rights into a tool of censorship and authoritarian control.

The Danger of Cultural Relativism

At its core, the Cairo Declaration embodies cultural and religious relativism: the idea that human rights are not universal but contingent on tradition, culture, or religion. This stands in direct opposition to the principle of universality enshrined in the UDHR.

Ambassador Gunter Nooke of Germany captured the danger in 2007 when he warned against “the tendency within some parts of the international community to roll back the principle of universality in order to make the enjoyment of fundamental rights dependent on factors such as tradition, culture, religion, or the level of development.”

If rights are relative, they are not rights at all but privileges dispensed by authorities. Universality is the only safeguard against tyranny. The Cairo Declaration undermines this safeguard.

Political Strategy of the OIC

The Cairo Declaration is not merely a theological statement but a political strategy. By embedding Shari’ah-based rights into the UN framework, the OIC seeks to:

Shield member states from criticism over violations of the UDHR.
Promote Islamic law as a legitimate alternative to secular human rights.
Export censorship internationally through resolutions against “defamation of religions.”
Undermine universality by normalizing cultural relativism.

Through sheer numbers, the OIC has succeeded in pushing this agenda within the UN system. In 1997, the Cairo Declaration was included in the UN’s compilation of regional human rights instruments. In 2007, the General Assembly passed a resolution on “Combating Defamation of Religions” by a two-to-one majority, with Islam singled out for protection.

The danger is clear: if the Cairo Declaration gains equal legitimacy with the UDHR, the very foundation of human rights is compromised.

Conclusions

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is not complementary to the UDHR. It is an alternative system that:

Subordinates all rights to Islamic Shari’ah.
Institutionalizes inequality against women and non-Muslims.
Denies freedom of religion by prohibiting apostasy and limiting conversion.
Curbs freedom of expression by criminalizing criticism of Islam.
Protects religions rather than individuals.
Legitimizes discrimination and censorship under the guise of cultural and religious specificity.

By adopting the Cairo Declaration, OIC states reneged on their commitments under the UDHR and the International Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR). By promoting it within the UN, they threaten the universality of human rights.

Human rights are either universal or meaningless. Once subject to religious or cultural exceptions, they cease to be rights and become privileges. The Cairo Declaration is therefore not a contribution to human rights but a weapon against them.

The international community must resist any attempt to grant it equal standing with the UDHR. To do otherwise would be to betray the principle of universality and abandon those—women, minorities, dissidents—who most need protection.

In the end, the clash between the UDHR and the Cairo Declaration is not just a technical debate. It is a struggle over the future of human rights: universal dignity for all, or conditional rights for some. On this question, there can be no compromise.