Abstract This systematic review examines children’s rights across the 22 member states of the League of Arab States, with attention to the gap between UNCRC obligations and the Islamic-law reservations states have used to limit their scope. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, sixty-four peer-reviewed studies (2000–2024) were identified through searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and JSTOR and assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Thematic synthesis covered seven domains: child labor, education, child marriage, armed conflict and displacement, violence and abuse, health and nutrition, and legal reform. The enforcement gap is consistent and sharpest in conflict-affected contexts. The evidence base skews toward Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen; Gulf states remain underrepresented. Reform is real but uneven: Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan show that rights-compatible change within Islamic legal frameworks is possible where political will and sustained civil society engagement coincide.
This article examines the potential of Islamic legal and ethical principles to support environmental protection and climate justice in Pakistan. Given the country’s acute vulnerability to climate change – evidenced by frequent floods, droughts, and glacial melt – there is an urgent need to mobilize culturally grounded legal frameworks that resonate with its social and religious fabric. Islamic law, or Sharīʿah, offers a rich set of values and doctrines such as amānah (trusteeship), maṣlaḥah (public interest), ḥimā (protected zones), and nafh al-ḍarar (prohibition of harm), which emphasize environmental responsibility, intergenerational justice, and balance in creation. This paper argues that integrating these principles into Pakistan’s environmental legal system could strengthen both public legitimacy and policy effectiveness. Drawing upon classical jurisprudence (fiqh), contemporary fatwas, and Islamic environmental ethics, the study explores the compatibility of Sharīʿah-based reasoning with modern climate governance. The paper also analyzes Pakistan’s national climate instruments, such as the Pakistan Climate Change Act 2017, National Climate Change Policy (2021), and environmental regulations under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA), in light of Islamic values. By presenting a model of “Sharīʿah-compatible climate governance,” this study contributes to the wider debate on decolonizing climate law and developing faith-based legal responses to the global ecological crisis.
Legitimacy of the use of force has been a contentious issue in Muslim states between the rulers and non-state actors. Being political opponents, both rulers and non-state actors often resort to force against each other and claim such use of force to be legitimate. The claim of the legitimacy of the use of force is primarily based on Islamic rules and principles. This article shows that there is a dilemma in the legitimacy claim where both rulers and non-state actors alike use the same rules and principles to support their claims. This article offers an analysis of these claims about Islamic law to show where the legitimacy lies. It argues that to assess the legitimacy of the use of force, it is necessary to determine the dividing lines between jihad, rebellion, and terrorism. This is because both state and non-state actors (such as rebels and terrorist groups) often accuse each other of using illegitimate use of force under the banner of tyranny and terrorism. Whereas Islamic law allows the use of force by state authorities or rulers to suppress terrorism, it does not allow them to use asymmetrical force against armed rebels who have a just cause to fight the ruling authorities. Therefore, rebels have legal protection from being subject to asymmetrical force under Islamic law as opposed to terrorists. As a result, it is necessary to draw the dividing lines between jihad (which is often used as a justification for the use of force), rebellion, and terrorism to differentiate legitimate use of force from illegitimate ones. This article concludes by showing that regarding the legitimacy of the use of force in Muslim states, disentanglement between the law and Islamic religion is not only undesirable but also unattainable.
This article presents and discusses views of some contemporary Arab scholars who have examined the validity of the notion of copyright from the point of view of Islamic law as they understand it. Whereas a few of these scholars have rejected the notion altogether, most of them have argued for its compatibility with Islamic law. To argue for or against the validity of copyright from the point of view of Islamic law, these scholars have employed an impressive host of arguments, rules, principles, and views from Islamic scriptural texts and legal history, making references to Qur’anic verses, Prophetic traditions, historical incidences and practices. These discussions, however, have focused on specific technical questions relating to Islamic law, such as whether authorship (knowledge) can be monetarized, the kind of right that copyright is, the contractual aspects of the relationship between the producers, distributors, and consumers of knowledge, and who should regulate the application of copyright and on what basis. The article concludes that these discussions – which may have influenced current policies on copyright in Arab countries – are mostly uncritical and failed to question problematic aspects of copyright and use the rich normative tradition to which Arab scholars belong to provide valuable input to present debates on the validity, usefulness, and future of copyright.
This systematic review explores how Islamic principles interpret and support children’s participation in decision-making processes across various contexts. Although Islamic teachings particularly through values such as shūrā (mutual consultation), ʿadl (justice), tarbiyah (nurturing), ʿaql (intellect), and maṣlaḥah (public interest) strongly advocate for children’s involvement, practical application remains limited. A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across major databases, resulting in the inclusion of 19 relevant studies. Findings highlight a growing recognition of children’s evolving autonomy in Islamic scholarship but also reveal significant barriers, including cultural misconceptions, adult-centered authority, lack of awareness, and limited resources. Facilitators such as trust-building, age-appropriate information, and supportive environments were identified as critical to empowering children’s participation. Interventions grounded in Islamic values are recommended to bridge the gap between principle and practice. This review underscores the need for policies, training, and research that center children’s voices while aligning with Islamic ethical frameworks, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and just approach to child decision-making in Muslim communities.
The idea and institutionalization of human rights is meant to protect people from negative experiences, such as discrimination, marginalization and oppression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed on December 10, 1948 reflects this basic intention, but to this day there is no unanimity in Islamic circles to accept the universality of the values listed there. Conservative Muslims even reject them as products of Western secularism and liberalism alien to Islamic doctrine and declare their own human rights. The debate between the West and Islam on the universality of human rights has triggered a clash of worldviews between the two. This article will transcend the clash by recalling the basic intention of human rights to protect human beings from negative experience. The author recommends an anamnestic way of moderation that brings the two sides closer together.
This article examines the relationship between Islamism, democracy, and human rights, focusing on the ideological and historical challenges that hinder the democratic trajectories of Islamist movements. Rooted in opposition to Western colonialism and secular authoritarianism, Islamism has historically emphasized resistance over governance, often sidelining pluralism, justice, and civil liberties. Two key ideological barriers – anti-Westernism and anti-secularism – have shaped Islamist approaches to power, fostering authoritarian tendencies and impeding the development of democratic norms and human rights practices. Using Turkey as a central case study, the article traces the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) as a model of democratic progress in the early 2000s. During this period, the AKP implemented significant reforms, such as enhancing minority rights and reducing military influence, bolstering Turkey’s democratic credentials. However, the subsequent authoritarian turn of the AKP, marked by crackdowns on press freedom, suppression of opposition, and widespread human rights violations, reveals the persistent influence of ideological constraints on Islamist governance. The study underscores how anti-Western rhetoric has been used to deflect criticism, consolidate power, and justify the erosion of human rights, while anti-secularism has deepened societal polarization and restricted political inclusivity. The article situates Turkish Islamism within the broader political and historical context of the Muslim world, where colonial and authoritarian legacies have shaped Islamist ideologies. It explores how these experiences have created a reactionary political culture that undermines the values of democracy, human rights, and pluralism. The study also addresses broader trends, drawing on empirical data from sources such as Freedom House and press freedom indices, which highlight significant deficits in political freedoms and human rights across many Muslim-majority countries. By analyzing these dynamics, the article emphasizes the importance of transcending historical grievances and ideological barriers to foster governance that prioritizes justice, inclusivity, and civil liberties. This analysis contributes to ongoing discussions about the potential for Islamist movements to engage meaningfully with democratic principles and sustain human rights frameworks in complex political environments.
Despite assuming lead roles during the critical constitution making stage of power transitions, Islamist parties in Turkey, Tunisia, and Egypt adopted very different strategies in the process, which produced very different outcomes. Using insights from regime transition literature, this article undertakes an empirical analysis of the observed behavior of Islamist political parties in these countries to address the question of Islam, human rights, and constitution-making. In doing so, the article treats constitution-making as a key stage of democratization and challenges the commonly held assumption that conflict is undesirable for democratization in general and constitution-making in particular. The article demonstrates that consensus is not a prerequisite of democracy, as is commonly believed, but rather a by-product of the democratization process. Moreover, it argues that a serious conflict during the high-stake process of constitution-making may even be necessary. The findings suggest that the outcome of constitution-making does not depend upon the presence or absence of cleavages and entrenched conflict, but rather the approach of the key political actors to conflict in terms of its elimination, management or avoidance. The article utilizes process-tracing methods to compare and analyze the strategies of Islamist political parties within the Tunisian, Turkish, and Egyptian political contexts. Specifically, this article advances a two-pronged thesis. First, the outcome of constitutional processes in these three countries is closely related to the different strategies of conflict management practiced by Islamist political parties: Turkey’s Islamists employed a strategy of delaying constitution-making to ensure they had maximum leverage over the process – what I call a politics of hegemony . Egyptian Islamists, feeling in a “use it or lose it” type of moment for shaping the future of the country’s politics, played a game of chicken vis-a-vis the army and secular civil society activists – an approach that can be called a politics of confrontation . The Tunisian Islamists demonstrated pragmatism and moderation in the constitutional process to survive the increasingly unified opposition from the civil society and other political parties, which can be called a politics of compromise . Such divergence of Islamist politics raises the question of how Islamists form their strategies. The second prong of this article’s thesis is that the specific distribution of power among the actors constrains or enables Islamist actors to act in hegemonic, confrontational, and pragmatic ways. Political contexts with a stable balance of power among the state, political society, and civil society are more likely to produce politics of compromise, whereas unstable power distribution leads to a politics of confrontation, and uneven power distribution leads to a politics of hegemony. By treating constitution-making as a stage of regime transition, this study offers insights that bridge the literature on democratization and constitutionalism, and by examining variation in Islamist politics it contributes to the debate on human rights promotion in the Muslim world. The lessons from this earlier period of power transitions also shed light on the reasons for the fragility of gains in democratization and dynamics behind authoritarian backsliding during the following decade.
Abstract This paper examines the neo-colonial project of Narendra Modi implemented in Kashmir after the revocation of special status on August 5, 2019. The neo-colonial infrastructure supported by the threads of re-classification of legal residents and land designations intends to significantly transform the demography of Muslim majority Kashmir into a Muslim minority, consequently destroying the Muslim identity of the state. The abrogation of Article 370 and enactment of new domicile law has extended the legal and administrative control of New Delhi, making Kashmir indistinguishable from the Indian legal system and leaving no room for the local legislative assembly to make laws beneficial for the state residents. The paper asks how India is implementing the neo-colonial settler agenda in Kashmir. How and to what extent legal and military instruments are employed to disempower Kashmiris from territorial and cultural identity? The paper argues that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is pursuing a neo-colonial settler agenda in Kashmir through ‘destroy and replace,’ which is supported by the neo-liberal agenda, including; new land management policy, new domicile law, spatial planning and development, new settlements of Hindus, authoritative central control, and massive militarization to carry out gross human rights abuses and repression.
Abstract Religious freedoms of minorities in Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan are compromised due to structural issues as well as social and historical concerns. For instance, the abuse of the blasphemy law has led to minority communities facing threats and violence. And in a country where religious scholars are often absent from, if not against, discourses about human rights, the religious rights of minorities remain a secular and hence culturally unsound discourse. There is thus a need for two parallel movements. One, an awareness within Muslim communities about the need to engage with religious freedoms, and hence the modern human rights regime, as an essentially Islamic process requiring reform from within. And two, the human rights structure also giving religion its due since religious freedoms are part of, and engender, many other rights as well. In this article, a case is made for this dual process, by exploring the work of scholars of Islam such as Abdullahi An-Na’im and Khaled Abou El Fadl as well as the insecurities of religious scholars in Pakistan who have reacted to human rights as a western agenda.
Abstract This paper employs Critical Discourse Analysis to examine resistance discourses as created by the Ahmadiyya followers – a self-defined sect of Islam – to argue against negative discourses undermining them in Indonesia. In some legal proclamations and statements delivered by state officials and the representatives of majority Muslims in the country, the followers of the sect, especially those affiliated to the JAI (Jemaat Ahmadiyya Indonesia) are excluded from Islamic community. By using Van Dijk’s ideological square, this study aims at identifying resistance discourses created by the JAI followers as the defence strategies to oppose negative discourses presenting them as the non-believers of Islam. The resistance discourses are apparent in both written and spoken texts, such as books, articles, speeches, and public debates created by the sect. The finding reveals that the JAI followers create discourses of victim, defender of Islam, imperialism, illegitimacy, and discourse of public deception using various discourse strategies namely victimization, scare tactics, positive attribution, quotation, power delegitimising and negative portraits of misbehaving.
Abstract This research explains the comparison of regulations on mosque loudspeakers between Indonesia and Muslim countries in the world. Guidelines for the use of mosque loudspeakers in Indonesia are regulated in the Instruction of the Director-General of Islamic Community Guidance at the Ministry of Religious Affairs Number 101 of 1978 concerning Guidance on the Use of Loudspeakers in Mosques and Musala and the Circular Letter of the Minister of Religion Number 5 of 2022 concerning Guidelines for the Use of Loudspeakers in Mosques and Musala. Primary data of this study includes the 1978 Instructions and the 2022 Circular Letters. Secondary data is obtained from relevant literature sources and regulations on the use of mosque loudspeakers in several Muslim countries in the world, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Malaysia. This research finds the concept of moderation of regulations on mosque loudspeakers in Indonesia. The findings of this research can be used as a guide model for drafting the contents of mosque loudspeaker regulations in several Muslim countries around the world by relying on three moderate aspects regarding the rules of time (public morals), volume (public health), and sound quality of mosque loudspeakers (public convenience).
Abstract While there are legal regulations prohibiting smoking in indoor areas in Turkey, there is none for outdoor areas. Many non-smokers are exposed to environmental tobacco smoking against their will in Turkey. Numerous research efforts have documented the fact that environmental tobacco smoke poses risks to human health because it pollutes the environment by releasing dangerous chemicals into the air that non-smokers breathe. This means that tobacco smoking poses risks to a safe environment and people’s lives. People have a right to the environment, as guaranteed by the Turkish Constitution. Since Stockholm Declaration, many countries have recognized that people have a right to a safe environment or that a safe environment is essential to the enjoyment of human rights, including Turkey. However, how non-smokers perceive of the impacts of environmental tobacco smoke on the enjoyment of the right to the environment enshrined within the Turkish legal system has not been studied to date. Accordingly, this research aims to explore how issues relating to environmental tobacco smoke can be approached from an environmental human rights perspective. To achieve this purpose, a qualitative case study was conducted in Istanbul. The results of this analysis show that non-smokers do not enjoy the right to the clean environment guaranteed by the Turkish Constitution due to the ETS.
Abstract The Universal Periodic Review (UPR), established in 2006, has been hailed as an innovative mechanism of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. The peer review mechanism assesses the human rights records of all UN Member States and provides recommendations to further the global promotion and protection of human rights. This article provides an analysis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s third UPR in 2018 with a specific focus on the State’s use of capital punishment. It explores the challenges faced by the UPR and issues recommendations to foster meaningful discourse, in the international community, to protect the right to life and engender change at the domestic level.
Abstract The chaos and confusion that accompany war, disaster, and international migration separate families when they need each other most. The Red Cross and Red Crescent join the search across international borders, offering a unique service that allows families to reconnect. This paper examines the role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and specifically their Restoring Family Links (RFL) program in the search for missing migrants. Based on interviews with the RFL program’s officers and those individuals who have been reconnected with their missing family members, this paper evaluates the results and implications of the RFL program model, draws out lessons and insights (local, regional, or global), and makes policy recommendations. Also, by sharing migrants’ experiences and insights, it aims to raise awareness of the less well-known legal, economic, and social consequences of the displacement crises.
AbstractHate speech (‘al-jahr bi’-sūʾ min al-qawlin the Qur’anic description) continues to be the subject of contentious debate. Arguably, the notion of “unregulated speech” in the liberal discourse encourages hate speech on the pretext of “defending” the right to freedom of speech. Islam recogniseshuman dignityas the underlying basis of all human rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of speech. Here arise two core questions. First, is freedom of speech and expression an absolute right or has Islam imposed certainconditionson the human agency while this right is exercised? Second, what do theseconditionsconcerning freedom of speech imply about the regulation of hate speech? I approach these questions by beginning with the introduction ofkaramahprinciple followed by an overview of theoretical conceptualisations of free speech in the Western context. Finally, the Islamic position on the subject is brought forth through the conceptual analysis of relevant Islamic texts. The article draws three conclusions. First, human dignity is the intrinsic condition that surpasses all rights and freedoms. Second, the idea of “unregulated speech” is controversial and has been a reason forharminghuman dignity and making the public discourse inimical to social order. Third, there should be a legal, moral and rational reconciliation between exercising ‘speech limitations’ and ‘free speech’ to ensure sustainable peace and social cohesion.
Abstract This article examines resistance discourses created and disseminated by a religious minority in Indonesia called Gerakan Ahmadiyah Indonesia (GAI) to counter any negative portrayals and religious-based discriminations. Ahmadiyah is a self-defined sect of Islam that has been the target of physical attacks and discursive discrimination in Indonesia. This analysis focuses on identifying discourse topics raised and strategies employed by one of the Ahmadiyya groups in the country called GAI to reveal their resistance and defend their ‘Islamic’ faith. Various texts produced in different genres namely statements and comments published in media, books, speeches and various articles published online in GAI’s official websites are used as the data which were collected during field research in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The analysis found that, in order to counter discriminatory discourses, the GAI Ahmadis present various resistance discourse themes such as distinguishing themselves from Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia, justifying their Islamic understanding by highlighting religious freedom discourse, including themselves as Muslims and presenting themselves as peaceful movement.
Abstract The debate on Islam and human rights is roughly 50 years old. During this time a vast literature has been produced analyzing the relationship between the religion of Islam, Muslims societies and international human rights norms. What have we learned during this time that can further an understanding of this topic among students, scholars and members of the general public? What analytical framework is optimal? Is the crisis of human rights in Muslims societies a function of internal conditions, external factors or are they to be located within the framework of Islamic doctrine, traditions, the shariah in particular? This article grapples with these questions by looking back over the past five decades. The objective of this essay is to advance an objective framework of analysis for understanding the debate on Islam and human rights. A historical and comparative approach is adopted. Key moments that have shaped the debate on Islam and human rights are recalled. Significant political developments that have shaped the contours of the debate are examined such as the legacy of colonialism, the rise of political Islam, the role of Western policy and the failure of the post-colonial state in the Arab-Islamic world. The contributions of influential scholars and activists who have advanced the struggle for human rights in Muslims societies are also recognized in this article.
Abstract Focusing on the constitutional changes undergone since 2005 in Iraq, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, this article explains how the constitutional limitation clauses affected the respective material constitutional transformations. The explanatory value of the limitation clauses is tested, with possible causalities (as well as non-causal relations) explored through a case study. Generalizing research arguments are offered, theorizing about the material constitutional transformation processes in authoritarian and post-authoritarian scenarios. The research arguments shed light on the limitation clauses’ potential to reveal the policy intent underlying the constituent power, as well as their negative implications for a proper democratic consolidation, their effects in keeping dynamics of political immobilism, and their consequences in terms of favouring instances of authoritarian regression.
