Shirin Ebadi, Keynote Address: Islam, Human Rights, and Iran

• Citation: Vol. 23 No. 1
• Publication year: 2009

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

ISLAM, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND IRAN

Shirin Ebadi^*

On the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I deem it necessary first and foremost to thank all those individuals and groups who have endeavored to promote human rights values globally. I would also like to extend my warmest gratitude to everyone who has helped to sponsor the event today.

One of the important debates today, both in the Muslim world and globally, is whether Islam and human rights are indeed compatible and whether Islamic governments can run state affairs in a manner that is in accordance with human rights values. There are two groups that believe Islam and human rights values are not compatible. The first group includes non-democratic Islamic states and extremist religious groups. They argue that human rights and democracy are

Western concepts and that these are incompatible with Islam as a religion.¹

Non-democratic Islamic states believe they are God's representatives on earth and maintain that they gain legitimacy through religion and not through the votes of the people. Therefore, they must uphold religious values. For them, Islam is simply the concept that applies to their own ideology and not what is understood to be the Islamic religion by many other Muslims. These non- democratic Islamic states force their political opponents into silence.²They rob their people of the power to confront them. Let us not forget that it is much easier for people to fight earthly leaders than religious leaders or those who claim to represent religion on earth.

These forms of government have many examples across the Middle East, including the governments in Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Bahrain. What is interesting to note is that 19 years ago, in a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Islamic countries in Cairo, these Islamic states attempted to draft an Islamic Declaration for Human Rights. Most

Islamic countries acceded to the declaration.³

I have always opposed the Islamic Declaration on Human Rights. It is quite simple. If Muslims want to have their own universal declaration of human rights based on their own religious premises, then we must grant the same right to the followers of all other religions as well. We will then have the Jewish Declaration of Human Rights, the Buddhist Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous other human rights declarations representing other faiths and belief systems across the globe. It is impossible to run the world based on the many faiths and religious belief systems that exist. It is necessary to have as our starting point the principles to which we all agree, not those on which we differ.

The second group that argues that human rights and democracy are incompatible with Islamic religion is comprised of Western theorists who attempt to present new arguments, such as the clash of civilizations.⁴They maintain that since human rights values, such as democracy, were born in the

West as a result of modernity, these values are incompatible with Islamic civilization, which is unable to absorb these values. This group argues that a clash between Western civilization and Islamic civilization is inevitable.⁵To prove their arguments, they refer to the many terrorist actions carried out by radical Islamic groups, as well as the behavior of many non-democratic Islamic states.⁶

It is important to understand the history behind the emergence of these theories in the West. Immediately after the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, we saw the formation of arguments that presented Islam as the new enemy. With this enemy in mind, these Western theorists could justify their wars in the Middle East and the sale of their weapons to the region.⁷I have argued and strongly believe that this theory of the clash of civilizations is in fact only the other side of the argument proffered by non-democratic Islamic states. I oppose both viewpoints.

Let us remember that in the Cold War era, Islam was considered a friend and ally of the West for its ability to fight Communism. Strangely enough, at that time, nobody talked about a clash of civilizations. In fact, the United States supported many radical religious groups.⁸Following the invasion of

Afghanistan by Soviet troops, the Taliban emerged through financial support provided directly or indirectly by the United States.⁹This led to the establishment of the radical group and its ability to rule over Afghanistan, which resulted in the crisis that we witnessed later.

With the end of the Soviet era, the Taliban turned from a U.S. ally into a new enemy, leading to the decision to invade Afghanistan.¹⁰If the clash of civilizations theory-the foundation of many adopted policies-is true, how can we possibly justify the alliance between Western states, particularly the

United States, and countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, that do not even have proper parliaments? It seems quite clear that these theorists have no goal in mind but to justify wars across the Middle East.

But let us take a look at what happens in the Muslim world. On the other side are Islamic thinkers and intellectuals who have risen to challenge the Western theorists. A single front of Muslim thinkers and scholars from across the Muslim world, who do not belong to any one nationality, will uphold Islamic values in the years to come. This single front does not have a name; it does not have a leader; it does not have a central office or any branches. These values rest in the hearts and minds of all enlightened Muslims who seek to protect and uphold their religion and the values of their predecessors by respecting human rights and rejecting any untruthful assertions made to justify oppression.

These Islamic thinkers and enlightened individuals believe that the inherent problem does not lie in Islam.¹¹The real issue here is that these non- democratic Islamic states wish to use Islam as a means or pretext to arrive at a wrong interpretation of religion in order to justify their goals. If this were prevented, it would lead to their downfall.

Islam is a religion that actually endorses cultural pluralism. The Qur'an underscores this principle. It instructs, "I will keep my religion for myself and you keep yours."¹²Addressing the prophet of Islam, it says, "Had your God willed, all people on the planet would have been believers. Do you truly seek to forcefully impose the belief system on the people?"¹³

It is essential to understand these debates, especially at a time when many Islamic political groups have come to power across the Muslim world. For example, in Turkey, the Islamic party gained power through free and fair elections.¹⁴One of their first initiatives...