Shaykh Yusuf and Post-Secular Human Rights

[Al Mumtahanah]

Many of you remember that the Trump Administration appointed Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, America's foremost Muslim scholar, as human rights advisor to help develop a new international theory of human rights after American withdrew from the HRC. This has prompted both concern and excitement. Among the most excited Muslim voices is Ismail Roger, prominent religious rights activist, who tweeted: "the purpose is to advise the State Department to pursue policies rooted in true respect for rights rather than pushing abortion & LGBT ideology". The appointment also prompted this article Shahrukh Khan, which is what this thread is about:

"For decades, human rights in its various permutations has been a highly effective proxy through which the West has waged a kind of low intensity ideological warfare in the Muslim world. Those advocating for such rights have been able to collapse, generate, and transport technologies of difference (think: race, gender, etc.) and new sensibilities and lifestyles that have changed how Islam is practiced. In fact, various juridical and political weapons and the ideas and normativities they work to fasten (many of which spawned organically in the West) have been smuggled through an anthropocentric, rights-based rhetoric. Can Muslims (and other similarly situated confessionalists) support a program that primarily draws its valuations of religion from the benefit it can give solely to humans? What of the eschaton and salvation? Would it be a stretch to say that the program of secular human rights turned the winds pushing Klee’s angel towards the future into gusts that drew their strength from a disapprobation of tradition?"

https://traversingtradition.com/2019/07 ... ights/amp/

Khan sees Shaykh Yusuf's appointment as a new paradigm in human rights free of secularism. Is this concerning? Or is it good? I think it is good because it helps resolve the increasing tension between the West and Islam by introducing a common language.

[Rojava Free State]

I hope this man is moderate and will respect secular law as the foundation of our country

I also hope Americans will give him a chance and won't immediately turn against him because "Brown mad bad"

[ECKU]

I think it's good, AlHamdulillah. We need more Muslim Islamic voices in governments.

[ECKU]

I hope this man is moderate and will respect secular law as the foundation of our country

I also hope Americans will give him a chance and won't immediately turn against him because "Brown mad bad"

The shaykh is not moderate. He's a shaykh. And he's white.

[Al Mumtahanah]

I hope this man is moderate and will respect secular law as the foundation of our country

I also hope Americans will give him a chance and won't immediately turn against him because "Brown mad bad"

He is a great scholar and recognized as such even in the Middle East, I have high hopes.

[Highever]

I think it's good, AlHamdulillah. We need more Muslim Islamic voices in governments.

Opposite if what we need actually.

[Andsed]

More representation is nice i guess. As long as the dude respects and promotes Secularism for the government and does a decent job he has my support.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Happy to see support for him.

[Kragholm Free States]

If human rights are so antithetical to the Muslim world that they are considered a form of warfare, then the Muslim world absolutely deserves to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century; out of the shadow of barbarism and into the light of civilisation. I sincerely hope that when Ismail Roger speaks of "true respect for rights rather than [...] LGBT ideology", he doesn't mean the right of Muslims to administer lashes to homosexuals.

[ECKU]

If human rights are so antithetical to the Muslim world that they are considered a form of warfare, then the Muslim world absolutely deserves to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century; out of the shadow of barbarism and into the light of civilisation. I sincerely hope that when Ismail Roger speaks of "true respect for rights rather than [...] LGBT ideology", he doesn't mean the right of Muslims to administer lashes to homosexuals.

Only Muslim homosexuals. Either way I doubt Sh. Hamza Yusuf can actually enforce Shari'ah in any meaningful way. He's part the Human Rights Admin, not legislation.

[ECKU]

Happy to see support for him.

Here or elsewhere? Because most here don't actually support him.

[Fartsniffage]

If human rights are so antithetical to the Muslim world that they are considered a form of warfare, then the Muslim world absolutely deserves to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century; out of the shadow of barbarism and into the light of civilisation. I sincerely hope that when Ismail Roger speaks of "true respect for rights rather than [...] LGBT ideology", he doesn't mean the right of Muslims to administer lashes to homosexuals.

Only Muslim homosexuals. Either way I doubt Sh. Hamza Yusuf can actually enforce Shari'ah in any meaningful way. He's part the Human Rights Admin, not legislation.

Who gives a shit whether it's just to gay Muslims or to all gay people? One tries to bring that in and I will fight them politically, one manages to actually bring that in and I will go after them with the whips they believe are a just punishment.

[Kragholm Free States]

If human rights are so antithetical to the Muslim world that they are considered a form of warfare, then the Muslim world absolutely deserves to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century; out of the shadow of barbarism and into the light of civilisation. I sincerely hope that when Ismail Roger speaks of "true respect for rights rather than [...] LGBT ideology", he doesn't mean the right of Muslims to administer lashes to homosexuals.

Only Muslim homosexuals. Either way I doubt Sh. Hamza Yusuf can actually enforce Shari'ah in any meaningful way. He's part the Human Rights Admin, not legislation.

One would assume that position would grant him some fairly significant influence over the definition of human rights, through which he certainly could steer said definition in the direction of Islamic law - or, at least, granting Muslims in the US the right to practice Sharia. And that is unequivocally a terrible thing. Why should a homosexual born into Islam have no choice but to either face barbaric punishment for their sexuality, or renounce Islam and face barbaric punishment for apostasy? What kind of bloody savage thinks that is remotely acceptable?

[Nova Cyberia]

As long as he respects the secular foundation of our law I don't really see an issue.

[ECKU]

Only Muslim homosexuals. Either way I doubt Sh. Hamza Yusuf can actually enforce Shari'ah in any meaningful way. He's part the Human Rights Admin, not legislation.

Who gives a shi* whether it's just to gay Muslims or to all gay people? One tries to bring that in and I will fight them politically, one manages to actually bring that in and I will go after them with the whips they believe are a just punishment.

Which would cause you to be arrested for obstruction of justice. Or contempt of court, idk what preventing a punishment would be called.

[ECKU]

Only Muslim homosexuals. Either way I doubt Sh. Hamza Yusuf can actually enforce Shari'ah in any meaningful way. He's part the Human Rights Admin, not legislation.

One would assume that position would grant him some fairly significant influence over the definition of human rights, through which he certainly could steer said definition in the direction of Islamic law - or, at least, granting Muslims in the US the right to practice Sharia. And that is unequivocally a terrible thing. Why should a homosexual born into Islam have no choice but to either face barbaric punishment for their sexuality, or renounce Islam and face barbaric punishment for apostasy? What kind of bloody savage thinks that is remotely acceptable?

1: There is no punishment for being homosexual in Al-Islam
2: Punishment for apostasy is a debated topic among the 'ulama
3: It's possible that the Shaykh could use his Deen for his job, but I highly doubt it'll mean change for the cause of Muslim Americans at large.

[Fartsniffage]

Who gives a shi* whether it's just to gay Muslims or to all gay people? One tries to bring that in and I will fight them politically, one manages to actually bring that in and I will go after them with the whips they believe are a just punishment.

Which would cause you to be arrested for obstruction of justice. Or contempt of court, idk what preventing a punishment would be called.

Who is talking about preventing a punishment? I would be administering one.

[ECKU]

Which would cause you to be arrested for obstruction of justice. Or contempt of court, idk what preventing a punishment would be called.

How is talking about preventing a punishment? I would be administering one.

It'd be kinda odd for a non-Muslim to be carrying out a Shari'ah punishment on someone else.

[Highever]

How is talking about preventing a punishment? I would be administering one.

It'd be kinda odd for a non-Muslim to be carrying out a Shari'ah punishment on someone else.

It would be odd for there to be sharia law in a non Muslim, secular nation but you dont see the issue with that.

[Kragholm Free States]

One would assume that position would grant him some fairly significant influence over the definition of human rights, through which he certainly could steer said definition in the direction of Islamic law - or, at least, granting Muslims in the US the right to practice Sharia. And that is unequivocally a terrible thing. Why should a homosexual born into Islam have no choice but to either face barbaric punishment for their sexuality, or renounce Islam and face barbaric punishment for apostasy? What kind of bloody savage thinks that is remotely acceptable?

1: There is no punishment for being homosexual in Al-Islam
2: Punishment for apostasy is a debated topic among the 'ulama
3: It's possible that the Shaykh could use his Deen for his job, but I highly doubt it'll mean change for the cause of Muslim Americans at large.

1: Sure, because mind reading is impossible. But there is certainly a punishment for gay sex, is there not?
2: Most things are debated topics. Is the debate about whether or not there should be a punishment, or whether the punishment should be flogging or death?
3: I also doubt he'll actually be able to - or even attempt to - push for Islamic law, I merely found the comments about human rights as an act of war against the Muslim world, and Roger's comments about human rights in opposition to "LGBT ideology", quite concerning.

[Fartsniffage]

How is talking about preventing a punishment? I would be administering one.

It'd be kinda odd for a non-Muslim to be carrying out a Shari'ah punishment on someone else.

Muslims don't have a lock on beating the shit out of someone.

[ECKU]

It'd be kinda odd for a non-Muslim to be carrying out a Shari'ah punishment on someone else.

It would be odd for there to be sharia law in a non Muslim, secular nation but you dont see the issue with that.

Correct

1: There is no punishment for being homosexual in Al-Islam
2: Punishment for apostasy is a debated topic among the 'ulama
3: It's possible that the Shaykh could use his Deen for his job, but I highly doubt it'll mean change for the cause of Muslim Americans at large.

1: Sure, because mind reading is impossible. But there is certainly a punishment for gay sex, is there not?
2: Most things are debated topics. Is the debate about whether or not there should be a punishment, or whether the punishment should be flogging or death?
3: I also doubt he'll actually be able to - or even attempt to - push for Islamic law, I merely found the comments about human rights as an act of war against the Muslim world, and Roger's comments about human rights in opposition to "LGBT ideology", quite concerning.

1: Yes
2: The debate is whether there should be a punishment
3: Human rights are defined by Allah SWT; the kind of war brother Roger is talking about is probs the kufr kind of human 'rights'

It'd be kinda odd for a non-Muslim to be carrying out a Shari'ah punishment on someone else.

Muslims don't have a lock on beating the sh*t out of someone.

No said anything about that.

[Highever]

It would be odd for there to be sharia law in a non Muslim, secular nation but you dont see the issue with that.

Correct

1: Sure, because mind reading is impossible. But there is certainly a punishment for gay sex, is there not?
2: Most things are debated topics. Is the debate about whether or not there should be a punishment, or whether the punishment should be flogging or death?
3: I also doubt he'll actually be able to - or even attempt to - push for Islamic law, I merely found the comments about human rights as an act of war against the Muslim world, and Roger's comments about human rights in opposition to "LGBT ideology", quite concerning.

1: Yes
2: The debate is whether there should be a punishment
3: Human rights are defined by Allah SWT; the kind of war brother Roger is talking about is probs the kufr kind of human 'rights'

Muslims don't have a lock on beating the sh*t out of someone.

No said anything about that.

I'll never understand your utter failure to grasp the concept of the first amendment and why sharia is therefore jnvalid in the States. Nor how you think that continually showing contempt and disdain for the secular law and constitution is somehow going to endear the American population to Islam.

[Fartsniffage]

No said anything about that.

I did.

viewtopic.php?p=35946797#p35946797

[Kragholm Free States]

1: Sure, because mind reading is impossible. But there is certainly a punishment for gay sex, is there not?
2: Most things are debated topics. Is the debate about whether or not there should be a punishment, or whether the punishment should be flogging or death?
3: I also doubt he'll actually be able to - or even attempt to - push for Islamic law, I merely found the comments about human rights as an act of war against the Muslim world, and Roger's comments about human rights in opposition to "LGBT ideology", quite concerning.

1: Yes
2: The debate is whether there should be a punishment
3: Human rights are defined by Allah SWT; the kind of war brother Roger is talking about is probs the kufr kind of human 'rights'

1: And how is that anything other than a despicable act of barbarism?
2: What is the prevailing opinion in that debate?
3: No, human rights are defined by humans. Islam predates the concept of human rights by a rather long time, so Allah can't really have defined them very well. Are the "kufr kind of human 'rights'" the ones where people don't get beaten, mutilated, or killed for their beliefs or identity? Because if they are, I'd say kufr human rights beat Mr SWT's version any day.