Human Rights

Human rights situation in the Middle East (ME) is a central concern in contemporary political as well as academic discourses. There is a considerable amount of literature on the subject, both academic and journalistic, in the Western world. A large part of that literature blames the ME in different ways for its ‘terrible’ conception and treatment of human rights norms. They typically, do not hesitate to contextualise it as ‘Middle Eastern’ phenomenon. It is fascinating, though, that such contextualization is proposed predominantly without a substantial and appropriate context analysis. In this article, a context analysis is conducted, adopting an Area Studies Approach to identify the major features of a Middle Eastern context where human rights norms experience the region’s realities. As a result, four particular items, Islam, oil, Islamic-Western relations, and Israel are proposed as the main factors that form the real context of human rights in the Middle East. This analysis demonstrates that the influential causes of human rights violations in the ME are from both internal and external sources. The internal sources are highlighted in the dominant works of the field. It is interesting, however, that these works largely ignore the external ones. The nature of external factors, Western or attached to Western treatment of the Middle East might reveal the real motivations behind such remarkable overlooking.

In the classical Greek thought, the notion of “right” was concomitant with the “truth”. In the modern era, however, the notion of “right” became intertwined with the primacy of   “possessive individuality”. This primacy was, however, from the outset intellectually challenged. In the light of challenges posed, and by invoking the commonalities between Shahaboddin Suhrawardi and Martin Heidegger, the right to excellence is envisioned here as a maximal theory of “human rights”.

The inhuman acts of Israel in the Gaza Strip (2008-9) have seriously violated the international humanitarian law.International documents such as the Geneva Convention (IV) and Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (II) relating to protecting civilians during armed conflicts have clearly indicated violation of humanitarian law during Israeli’s deadly offensive at the turn of the year. Under these laws and other documents such as Convention on the Rights of the Child, the crimes and violence against Gaza’s children created a particular form of inhuman acts. Also, in accordance with the statute of International Criminal Court, the Israeli onslaught can be called as war crimes and genocide. Considering the violation of fundamental human rights of Gazans in all circumstances, the prosecution of persons who committed the crimes are possible regardless of their nationality or ratification of treaties and conventions.

The key problem addressed in the paper is that of the legal pluralism, more specifically the pluralism of legal systems within one state that pursues the accommodation of religious freedom claims. In its controversial Refah decisions the Strasbourg Court held that the prohibition of the Turkish Welfare Party was “necessary in a democratic society” because its plan to set up a plurality of legal systems was not “compatible with fundamental democratic principles”[1]. This paper tries to inquire into the notion of legal pluralism, tries to test normative assumptions made by the Court in its regard and argues that a “no plurality” approach would be overly simplistic and that a liberal approach would require different degrees of pluralization (some of which already exist to accommodate differences and diversity within a society) to be extended to religion, without however endangering constitutional democracy. <br />It is necessary to point out at least two major theoretical contexts in which this problem should be considered. One is undoubtedly the issue of ‘militant’ democracy: once we assume that constitutional democracy and legal pluralism are incompatible, we give a (part of) definition of democracy, which entitles us to reject any changes proposed to it while retaining the claim to be democratic. If we know what is democracy in a substantive sense, which values it is designed to protect (e.g. secularism or fundamental rights) we can legitimately reject any changes to that vision as a measure protective of such values[2]. <br />Another context that is relevant is the issue of universality and cultural relativism. It first appears when we attempt to define democracy as a substantive notion, which necessarily assumes a value judgement. It also becomes relevant if we mind that the rationale of legal pluralism is the necessity to recognize, respect and tolerate different views and visions of ‘happiness’. In its pure form the idea of relativism and legal pluralism is represented in the classical version of state-centered international law system, where states posses equal and unlimited internal sovereignty[3]. However even within the State any kind and instance of legal pluralism is about the respect and tolerance of the different normative values and views. Only straightforward consensus on all the rules and values as universal can justify total rejection of legal pluralism. <br />The paper will start by an attempt to clarify the understandings of legal pluralism in social sciences and law. The second part will try to construe a liberal argument in favor of advancing legal pluralism to a certain degree, basing on the individual right to freedom of religion and conscience. Instead of relying on the ‘collective rights’ argument, it rather believes that individual rights provide a sufficient basis for this claim, as far as religious life and consciousness are deemed an important part of individual personality and self-determination. The third part tries to balance the claims of legal pluralism by considering arguments against such a model of society. <br /><br clear="all" /> <br /> <br />[1] Case Of Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) And Others v. Turkey, <em>(Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98) </em>Judgment, 31 July 2001 [hereinafter <em>Refah (1)</em>] paras 70-71;<em>See also </em>Case of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey <em>(Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), </em>judgment, 13 February 2003, [hereinafter <em>Refah(2)</em>] paras 98 and 119. <br /> <br /> <br />[2] See <em>infra</em>, text accompanying notes 35-39. <br /> <br /> <br />[3] See <em>infra</em>, note 8, text for the note 25 and page 14.

An underlying theoretical point of this paper has been that if fundamental commitments and the questions of cultural identity that they bring with them (What is an X?) are understood in terms of functional analyses of the kind I have tried to give in the case of Islamic identity today, then there is scope to see these commitments as susceptible to various criticisms in the particular context of a conflict in which they might figure.  All this seems to me to offer far more scope and interest to moral philosophy than Williams allows it, even after granting to Williams the validity of the central role he gives to the idea of fundamental commitment and the validity of his critique of traditional moral philosophy. <br />  The paper has studied the question "What is a Muslim?" in the dialectic of a conflict arising out of a concern for Islamic Reform.  The conflict is one that arises because of moderate Muslims' fundamental commitment to a doctrine which contains features that are often effectively invoked by the absolutists whom moderate Muslims fundamentally oppose.  If a full analysis of the commitment reveals its defensive function which have disabled Muslims from a creative and powerful opposition to the absolutists, and if, moreover, this function of the commitment is diagnosed as itself based on a deep but common philosophical fallacy, it should be possible then for moderate Muslims to think there way out of this conflict and to transform the nature of their commitment to Islam, so that it is not disabling in that way. <br />The question of identity, "What is a Muslim?", then, will get very different answers before and after this dialectic about reform has played itself out.   The dialectic, thus, preserves the negotiability of the concept of identity and the methodological points I began with, at the same time as it situates and explains the urgency and fascination that such questions hold for us.

Human rights and religion can very often be seen as reinforcing one another. Therefore, religion plays a primordial role in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. For example, moral imperatives like “do not take any human being's life” or “you shall not steal” can be found in all major religions of the world, and have acted as an inspiration for the fundamental laws made by man. <br />None the less, religious laws can also contradict man-made laws and human rights treaties. Just to take one example, according to the Christian faith it is impossible for a woman to become a priest, while multiple human rights treaties clearly prohibit discrimination between the sexes. <br />It is precisely in such contentious matters that the national State will often intervene, granting preferential treatment to either religious laws or man-made treaties. The State, however, when it does interfere, has to do so in a very careful way, for one fundamental right is the right to religious freedom. The State will therefore frequently have to try to strike a balance between this right and other human rights concerned. <br />One regional convention safeguarding both religious rights like freedom of religion and religious practice, as other fundamental rights, is the European Convention of Human Rights, which we will explore in this paper. States that are members of the Council of Europe and parties to this convention will have to try to find a balance while being watched by an observant European Court of Human Rights. Thus the task of finding a balance between these rights has in Europe ultimately been given to the European Court, and its case-law is especially illuminating on the very relation between these rights. Looking at this jurisprudence will enable us to find out how the relationship between religious rights and other fundamental freedoms is perceived in the European Human Rights system. One essential question that arises, is in what manner and to what extent the Court allows for limitations and exceptions on/to other human rights when it comes to religious matters. For example, can one’s personal freedom be limited in order to preserve someone else’s religious beliefs? Does the European Court deviate from its normal course of action when faced with religious cases? Does such a religious context constitute “special circumstances” that allow for a different treatment, and if so, can this be justified? And on the other hand, what are the ultimate boundaries that other human rights put on religion, religious rights and traditions? Where is the line drawn? <br />The purpose of this study is to explore the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in search of an answer to this fundamental question. Rather than solely concentrating on the right to freedom of religion of article 9 ECHR, this paper will focus more on those other human rights contained in the Convention when they seem to conflict with the said right to religious freedom, and in a broader scope, with other religious rights, laws and practices. The jurisprudence of the Court, which seems to take a very nuanced position in such matters, will be examined. A study of this case-law will not only be helpful to explore the status of religious rights as compared to other fundamental rights, but may also be a source of inspiration for the international human rights system to promote concord between the different religions. Studying the way in which the European Court handles such cases will also lead us to new ideas on how to implement human rights in different religious cultures, while respecting diversity and religious freedom. In sum, exploring this human rights system will provide answers to the above posed questions, which shall lead us to new ideas on the tremendous important right to be protected in one’s religious freedom.

Selective adaptation describes the process by which international legal rules are contextualized to local conditions. The institutional and cultural contexts for selective adaptation involve a process by which non-local institutional practices and organizational forms are mediated by local norms. This process can be illustrated by reference to the local implementation of international human rights regimes.<br /> Selective adaptation is made possible by ways in which governments, elites, and other interpretive communities express their own normative preferences in the course of interpretation and application of practice rules. Selective adaptation depends on a number of factors, including perception, complementarity, and legitimacy. Perception influences understanding about foreign and local norms and practices. Originally a principle of nuclear physics, complementarity describes a circumstance by which apparently contradictory phenomena can be combined in ways that preserve essential characteristics of each component and yet allow for them to operate together in a mutually reinforcing and effective manner.

My study is about the Islamic reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and their compatibility under the regime of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties (VCLT). It is focused in the substantive reservations invoking Shari’a Laws entered by some Muslim countries to the central articles of the Convention which are, therefore, impermissible as incompatible whit the object and purpose of the Convention. I highlight the paradox of maximizing the Convention’s universal application at the cost of compromising its integrity and how substantive reservations to the CEDAW provisions, tolerating discrepancy between states’ laws and practice and the obligations of the Convention, pose a risk to the achievement of the Convention’s goals. I also question if the compatibility criterion of the VCLT is effective in view of acceptance of some substantive reservations of a derogatory nature I consider that the “object and purpose” test is subjective, the practice by the objecting states is not uniform and that looking at those which are (or are not) the objecting states in respect of a particular reservation, it is evident how political or extralegal considerations intervene when states evaluate the compatibility of reservations. I especially focus on the paradox of the objections to a reservation which have the same effect as an acceptance when the objecting and reserving states are still maintaining treaty relation. Therefore, there is no difference in the legal effects of a reservation accepted and one objected without opposing the entry into force of the treaty between itself and the reserving state. I further analyze how reservations invoking Shari’a Law entail conflicting norms (freedom of religion and equality rules). Recalling the view of the “balancing of interest” I argue that it could be a reasonable approach, but in practice it is difficult to find some sort of equilibrium not prejudiced against women. I then analyze if these reservations are suggestive of a wider ideological conflict between women’s rights enunciated in Islam and the ones formulated under the human rights treaties, and how they are representative of the women’s situation in the reserving states. I question what are the motivating factors behind the decision to reserve and if the reservations should be seen in the broader political and socio-economic perspective of domestic and international context? I then ask if the States ratify the Convention affording its objectives as a real commitment or if they only do so at political opportune moments? I consider that is not Islamic religious beliefs, but evolving political situations which are the determinant factors in making these kinds of reservations. I finally analyze the work of the CEDAW Committee considering its efforts disappointing as many of the new Muslim states parties did not pay attention to the criteria set out by the Committee, continuing  to enter either very general reservations or reservations to specific substantive articles. The new states parties with a predominantly Muslim population referred to the Islamic Shari’a Law as prevailing over the Convention without mentioning any specific articles, clearly not following the Committee’s recommendations in the formulation of impermissible reservations.

The Enlightenment's distinction between positive and natural religion furnishes a useful point of departure for thinking about the relationship, in today's world, between religion and human rights.  According to eighteenth century rationalism, natural religion consists in the simplest form of those beliefs that reason can admit to without contradiction, such as the existence of God and the immortality of the soul (Voltaire); whereas positive religions are merely the multitude of diverging institutions, dogmas, ceremonies and beliefs that human beings have created for themselves during the course of history.  In natural religion, consciousness finds divinity within itself, and thus is co-responsible for the laws that it constructs and obeys; in positive religion, God imposes His commands from without.  Despite their differences, however, both forms of religion rely on the same conception of temporality to make their claims understood:  they conceive of time as a pure linear sequence (t1, t2, t3, etc.) that is divided into the tripartite form of past, present, and future.  For positive religion, this structure supports the existence of a well-formed past-time during which sacred grounds for respecting human rights were first revealed to a privileged founder; the record of this past-time, in the form of holy writ, then becomes a stable meaning which is thought to ground (and require) any subsequent action that aspires to be righteous.  And while natural religion, for its part, attempts to avoid dogmatism by permitting practical reason to deduce right action from the God-given moral law within, the very concept of deduction in general entails the same tripartite structure of time:  that is, rational people can lay down the law for themselves only in a past-time which, even if it is very recent, must always precede (and hence pre-authorize) the rightness of all right action. According to positive religion, God gives people moral laws; according to natural religion, God gives them a faculty (reason) that allows them to produce valid moral laws for themselves.  Just like the conventional idea of positive law in general, both forms of religion display a kind of pre-rational "faith," so to speak, in what can and should happen after the moral law comes into being.  That is, law, natural religion, and positive religion all adhere to the proposition that the past in general—and appropriately sanctioned human rights norms, in particular—can provide a secure foundation for right action, both in the present and in the future. <br />But of course philosophers are hardly ever univocal when it comes to this or any other topic.  Against the foregoing conventional interpretation of time, Western thought has also delivered us an altogether different concept of temporality, one that supplants sequential time's staid historiography of dates, laws and eras with the notion of "historical" time (Heidegger).  The latter is characterized by the sheer persistence of a unitary spatial-temporal milieu that ceaselessly reproduces itself.  Although this unity supports all modes of becoming, it provides no stable pause, or platform, on which a secure foundation for action could ever be established definitively, once and for all (Nietzsche).  To paraphrase Walter Benjamin, the concept of this sort of temporality holds that the true site of history is not homogeneous, empty time, but rather time filled by the presence of the now (Die Jetztzeit).  From this point of view, time does not "pass"; rather, human beings are seen as living their entire lives in (or as) a now-time in which they are caught, inescapably, between the warring forces of past and future.  Franz Kafka's extraordinary parable, He, paints an image that vividly illustrates this concept of time: <br />  <br />He has two antagonists:  the first presses him from behind, from the origin.  The second blocks the road ahead.  He gives battle to both.  To be sure, the first supports him in his fight with the second, for he wants to push him forward, and in the same way the second supports him in his fight with the first, since he drives him back.  But it is only theoretically so.  For it is not only the two antagonists who are there, but he himself as well, and who really knows his intentions?  His dream, though, is that some time in an unguarded momentCand this would require a night darker than any night has ever been yetChe will jump out of the fighting line and be promoted, on account of his experience in fighting, to the position of umpire over his antagonists in their fight with each other. <br />Kafka's man is a figure for human freedom:  the fateful "place," as it were, where the struggle between past and future eternally transpires.  But this human freedom should not be confused with the kind in which reason lays down or acknowledges universal laws that then warrant the rightness of future actions (Kant), or even with the kind of Hegelian freedom that permits the individual to recognize and identify with the rational universal that is immanent within the institutions of his time and place.  Nor is this a non-rational, religious, sort of freedom, founded on grace or revelation, by means of which one can let oneself become a vehicle for accomplishing God's will (Meister Eckhart).  Rather, the kind of freedom that besets the man in Kafka's parable is tragic, in the precise Greek sense that it betrays itself as un-free and self-defeating whatever it does.  This is why the man dreams, impossibly, of escaping from the fighting line, for having to constantly experience oneself as the living site of a tragic confrontation between past and future is far less comforting than resting on the self-certain knowledge that one's actions are grounded on an absolute and indubitable foundation. <br />The difference between historiographical time and historical time corresponds to the differences between subservience and freedom, thought and action, and determinacy and indeterminacy.  Linear time attempts to reconcile reason and history by giving human rights a proper ground; but as Goethe says, in the beginning was the deed, not the word.  Unitary time is history by providing a site for the inherently groundless enactment of human rights; but as Kant says, intuitions without concepts are blind.  This essay elucidates the rich contrast between these two modes of temporality, and meditates on their significance for the task of thinking about the relationship between religion and human rights.

At a time of terrorist actions, the civil wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq as well as the caricatures of the Prophet and Pope XVI’s speech about violence in Islam, it is urgent for the Islamic academic community to speak about a major issue: the notions of peace and war in Islam.<br /> This paper will explore and analyze these notions, putting an emphasize on Islam as a religion of peace promoting human rights and humanitarian values; the author will of course approaches and presents the explanations as to why Islam is a religion of violence, only to dismiss these arguments. There are indeed authors presenting Islam as a religion of violence that carries deep inside the seeds of hatred, racism and many other values that are against human rights. These authors are usually Orientalists. This paper will explain who and why these theories are wrong. Then there are extremist groups presenting distorted interpretations of Islam as to justify massive killings (terrorism, WMD, suicide attacks); the author of the paper will take few examples as to explain how these movements rely on distorted and nihilist views of Islam.

The recent creation of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations constituted another opportunity for the United States to take positive leadership towards a greater level of human rights implementation.  This opportunity for significant and timely paradigm shift has passed with too little fanfare.  The US refusal to run for election to the HRC, while not a crippling blow, does deprive it of the influence of the most powerful nation in the world.  The US’ ability and willingness to evade scrutiny of its human rights record is an important symbolic setback for human rights progress.  This most recent disappointing performance leaves a leadership vacuum which other less powerful nation-states are unlikely to fill.  <br />Are nation-states willing to or capable of generating a shift towards more complete fulfillment of global human rights?  If not, what other actors might take a “prime mover” role?   <br />Market forces are hugely important and dynamic actors, both globally and locally.  Businesses considered as a whole are immensely powerful in the lives of ordinary people and in global scope and influence.  However they don’t consistently act for the benefit of human rights at a global level because of their great heterogeneity, their motives, and their origins.  Economic institutions that interact directly with global markets are primarily concerned with nation-states development and trade policies.  These bodies pressure some nation-states to improve their human rights records.  However, the current major bodies depend on nation-states to enforce their rulings or provide their funding.  Furthermore their influence is reduced vis-à-vis more powerful nation-states, and their direct interaction with local communities is limited.  The help and participation of the international business community is vital, but cannot be relied upon as the catalyst for a paradigm shift in human rights implementation. <br />Religious institutions are uniquely situated to influence human rights implementation because of the function they perform – describing right and wrong conduct, the way things are and the way they should be.  The sheer numbers of people in the major world religions gives them potential to influence global human rights.  Religions engage in intensely localized action which is crucial for tangible human rights work.  They also possess a guiding structure which is necessary to achieve more equitable distribution of rights for all.  People are capable of influencing their surroundings, and religious belief structures can help to synchronize their efforts for change in a positive way.  <br />It is therefore necessary to describe and analyze how effective religious institutions might be in achieving increased human rights implementation.  Significant hurdles include at least current and past violent conflicts between people of different faiths, clashing belief structures, intolerance and extremism within religious groups, and the problem of influencing a diverse group of believers to perform any distinct action as a whole.  Unfortunately, religions have historically generated a great deal of human suffering, as well as advances in human rights.  <br />One way for religious institutions to influence a shift to greater human rights implementation is in acting as an organized moral restraint for governments.  This paper will attempt to identify areas in which the major religions have commonalities which are promising for joint human rights actions.  Additionally, it will include a focus on methods which religious groups have used to influence their governments for the purpose of bringing about positive change.

One of the major challenges for a civilization - and a parameter for assessing it - is how it treats those who do not belong to that civilization. The dichotomy between “we” and “them” is made variously across civilizations. In the past, interactions across civilizations are less voluminous and less intense.  But things have changed. The world has become a global village. Yet, it remains very pluralistic in terms of religion, culture, ethnicity, and language. The diversity of the contemporary world is due to the existence of concurrent civilizations on the world, each with its distinct culture, world view and values. Western culture, Islamic culture, oriental culture and African culture are some of the more prominent cultures today. Globalization is not without its problems. For one thing, the world is being pressurized into become a mono-cultural environment patterned after western culture. This position is not because of any inherent superiority of western civilization to the other civilization but because of the cultural invasion of the world by the west.   Information flow is the world has been essentially one way - from the west to the rest. The quest for peace in the modern world must therefore address how the diverse cultures of the world are accommodated, first within specific civilizations and secondly in the world at a global level particularly within the context of the United Nations. The past offers a good lesson for the future. This paper looks at how three civilizations – Islamic, African, and western - in their pristine historical and modern forms - have approached otherness. Islamic civilization emerged from a multi-ethnic and multi-religious environment.  The Islamic approach is one of tolerance and respect for otherness in spite of the full conviction of the rightness of its religious creed and way of life.  Islam recognizes the freedom of religion for non-Muslims and expresses this in a comprehensive and complete manner. It does not impose its laws or culture on them but grants social, cultural and judicial autonomy to these strangers within its borders. This attitude which was in the past is still observable in some modern Islamic countries such as Iran. African culture is a very diverse affair. The common traits amongst Africans include their warm treatment of strangers and their respect for the cultural independence of other peoples.  The attitude of western civilization contrasts with the attitudes of Islamic and African civilizations.  The West has consistently pursued a policy of domination of other peoples based on its perceived superiority over them. This attitude, for which various ideological and intellectual justifications have been advanced in defense of, remains in contemporary times, a constant source of friction and tension. It is suggested that models provided by Islamic and African cultures be used as a basis for modern interaction by persons belonging to different cultures.

In December 2019, some people in China were diagnosed with pneumonia which was found in the first studies to be related to the animal and food market in Wuhan, China. The newly identified virus which was named "Coronavirus 2019” spread all around the world, influencing different economic, political, and cultural fields. Since one of the most important sectors affected by the virus was the environment, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the realization of the right to a healthy environment. The findings showed that the virus reduced fossil fuels-related activities, especially in the world's oil companies and fashion and textile industries with high water consumption and water pollution, Decreasing air air pollution due to reduced domestic and foreign travel, And increasing the consumption of household safe drinking water and a decrease in the production of waste, especially toxic kinds. Also, the virus partially altered consumerism and international macro-behavioral patterns inconsistent with sustainable development, so that at the individual level, the purchase of unnecessary clothing and consumables was not done solely change the mood and on a global level, it strengthened the hope of living without fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable energy.  

Today, the global system is formed based on multilateralism, which is based on international relations and the origin of international organizations and institutions. But this matter is endangered by the unilateralism pursued by the United States of America. Coercive unilateral measures such as sanctions, threats, military intervention, and even measures such as withdrawal from international treaties are exerted at high levels. Therefore, such actions by a country, which considers itself protector of the human rights and interests of the international police, are contrary to the international law and the United Nations Charter and must be opposed by the international community. This study has adopted a descriptive-analytical approach and is based on internationally accepted documents and procedures. Data collection is done using library and internet tools and relying on objective data. In this study, we seek to answer the critical question of whether the United States' unilateral and hostile sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran are legitimate in terms of international law and human rights. Our initial answer (hypothesis) to this question is that the hostile actions of the United States of America against the Iranian people are blatant violations of international human rights law following the resolutions of the UN and the Human Rights Council. The fundamental rights of the Iranian people, such health, life, and the right to development, in all its legitimate respects, have been directly influenced by the hostile and unilateral actions of the United States, and have a worrying impact on the human rights and life of the Iranians. The United States' actions also impede the establishment of lasting and comprehensive peace and security in the international arena. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine and evaluate the contradictions between the sanctions as one of the most essential enforced and hostile actions of the United States' government against the economic resources of the Iranian state and nation from the perspective of the international law and human rights.

Communitarianism is considered as one of the most pivotal schools of thought in contemporary normative political theories. In fact, it is a label for a group of people who share common characteristics such as critiques on liberalism, and some concepts like “community”, “tradition” and “self”. Since most communitarians belong to the analytical philosophy, which focus on language and logic, they could not be regarded as contextualists. On the other hand, their analysis is related to “tradition”, “here and now”, and “particularism” which denotes the importance of historical, political and sociological situation. It seems that not only the enrichment of morality and human rights in communitarianism is possible, but also it implies somehow relationship with context, cultural diversity and relativism. It seems that communitarianism needs a “third way” between text and context.

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.

As Human Rights are supposed to be equal for all human beings leaving any social differences away there must be ways found to educate the population in Human Rights matters. One of the ways for Human Rights education is Religion. Religion is the link between the people of one society that does not care for social and educational differences. There is no need for high education to believe and to confess to a religion. But also in times of insecurity, e.g. wars or catastrophes, people tend to be more religious than in times of peace and are seeking help and moral advice from their religious leaders. <br />By attending religious ceremonies people get informed not only about religious matters but also about political ones as religious institutions are also a place for exchanging knowledge. An important role plays the religious leader as he can have a great influence esp. on the masses with lower education. By using effective methods he can contribute to implementing Human Rights in society. As there are already different methods of intercultural training on Human Rights affairs existing I would like to explain how, in analogy to that, an inter-religious training on Human Rights Affairs, esp. anti-discrimination, could work. The basis is the anti-bias concept which was originally developed in South Africa and which aims at the general removal of discrimination like sexism, racism, north-south-hierarchy, etc. The focus is on the sensibilization of oneself and starting a life-long-learning process of living aware of existing prejudices and developing tolerance in society. The anti-bias concept starts working directly at the mechanism of discrimination and is therefore useful and appropriate for the pedagogical fields which include religious institutions. The religious leader is enabled by this training to work with groups, e.g. children and adults or men and women, and lead those people to their emotional self-experience. Developing on this, non-discriminating conducts for the personal life- and the working situation is produced. Religion that works together with the anti-bias method shows how many chances a society has with less discrimination for all and helps finally to implement Human Rights.