4th ed. Oxford: Westview press, 2007. 290 p.*

A. E. Meyer, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, is widely known for her work on the history of the Middle East, as well as research in the field of Muslim law and comparative law. According to the author, the purpose of writing the book was to compare how civil and political rights are formulated in international legal acts and in those human rights concepts that develop Islamic principles of law. A. E. Mayer's work is of great interest from the point of view of evaluating these concepts in the light of the norms of international law, the evolution of Islamic thought, and the corresponding state of the world.-

A. E. Meyer. Islam and human rights. Traditions and politics. 4th ed. Oxford: Westview Press, 2007. 290 p.

page 207
state practice standards. In fact, the reader is given the opportunity to get acquainted with a complex of foreign and domestic political circumstances that somehow affect the pace and nature of the implementation of international human rights standards in the countries of the Middle East and are associated with various manifestations of the Islamic factor.

The structure of the monograph is subordinated to conceptually significant problems for the author. Thus, in the introduction, A. E. Meyer noted that it is unacceptable "to talk about Islam and human rights as if Islam were a monolith, as if there were a single Islamic philosophy, thanks to which all Muslims would have a special view of these rights" (p.XI). After all, Islam, as well as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and other great religions, have centuries-old but ambiguous traditions in their totality. In the course of their interpretation, conflicts may and do arise between religious doctrine and the modern concept of human rights. However, A. E. Meyer does not rule out that "reconciliation" of the conflicting parties may eventually be achieved.

In chapter 1, the author explored the origins of the problem, addressing the differences in understanding of human rights that exist in different cultures. The differences between Muslim and international human rights law, in her view, can in no way be attributed solely to Islam. It should be taken into account that Muslim law reflected the realities of the traditional society in which it was formed. It is precisely to these realities that the Muslim legal norms, which are still reflected in certain Islamic ideological attitudes, in the policies of a number of ruling regimes, and in the development of some "Islamic projects on human rights", which in practice result in a belittled position of women in the family and in society, and a violation of the principle of civil equality in relation to religious violation of freedom of conscience, etc.

According to A. E. Meyer, considerable difficulties in the implementation of international human rights standards are created by the presence of forces in both the West and the East that somehow play up the problem of these rights for their own political purposes. In both cases, it is necessary to rely on some ideologized theories and concepts. As shown in the monograph, almost simultaneously manifest themselves, on the one hand, the desire of individual Western politicians and scientists to assert the role of hegemon for the West in the political, economic and cultural life of all mankind, on the other - the intention to present the matter as if the Western community is able to bear the burden of the mission of promoting progress along the path of universal realization of universal values. principles of human rights. However, it ignores the fact that the Western world "has its own history of egregious human rights violations, including widespread practices of torture, genocide, religious persecution, racism, and centuries of slavery, not to mention abusive treatment of Muslims during the colonial period" (p.5). At the same time, many of the principles of human rights, if not all, are derived from legal regulations that were originally put forward and systematized in the West. But this does not mean that the values that have become the subject of international consensus are incompatible with the values of non-Western peoples.

In chapters 2, 3, and 4 of her work, the author examines the history of the formation of the concept of human rights in international law and Muslim legal systems; she correlates Islamic traditions with the content that human rights receive in Muslim society. Without losing sight of the existence of different approaches to human rights, which stem from differences between cultures that are genetically descended from different religions, M. E. Meyer criticizes those Western theorists of "cultural relativism", whose efforts call into question the very possibility of a comparative analysis of Muslim and international law. According to her, this is the result of an "idealized approach" to the Islamic tradition and an overestimation of its "normative effect", which did not correspond to the everyday realities of the Middle East (urbanization, industrialization, etc.). The absolutization of the internal isolation of Muslim culture based on supposedly unique ideals, principles and values led to the exclusion of the very possibility of external influences and borrowing. "Zealous relativists", therefore, find it simply unacceptable to compare Islamic and international legal provisions, since such a comparison, as they believe, will entail "an evaluative perception of one culture according to the criteria of another culture" (p. 9).

page 208
Currently, A. E. Meyer notes, there is a direct connection between the fixation in Western scientific publications of facts of human rights violations in the Middle East and the rhetoric about such violations, with the help of which the United States gives legitimacy to its neo-imperialist projects, justifying, for example, the invasion of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The latter case is particularly revealing: guided solely by strategic goals, for several decades the United States cooperated with the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein and tolerated the blatant violation of human rights in Iraq. A similar course was pursued by Washington in relation to the regime of Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan, as well as in relation to "one of the most valuable allies of the United States" in the Middle East-Saudi Arabia.

The politicization of human rights issues is also taking place in the State life of the Middle East countries. But there were two kinds of actions that were politically motivated: either a complete and unconditional rejection of the relevant international standards, or a non-recognition of their universality. In the first case, the thesis about the Western origin of international law, about its "Christian-Jewish" origins and ultimate alienation in relation to the world of Islam was used. In the second case, the main arguments were based on the concept described by A. E. Meyer as "cultural nationalism". At the same time, the main opponents of international legal acts on human rights were anti-democratic authoritarian regimes. Acting under the slogan of "Islamization" of the state and law, they trampled on civil rights and freedoms, brutally suppressed the opposition, and cracked down on the human rights movement.

The concept of " cultural nationalism "is based on the idea that a culture based on Islam is comparable to the Western one and in general even" overtakes " it, including in terms of protecting human rights. In this regard, A. E. Meyer considered it necessary to determine her attitude to the political background of this phenomenon in the Middle East. On the one hand, it can get an impulse from the desire to compensate for being under Western domination in the past and lagging behind the West in the present. On the other hand, "defending cultural autonomy" may be based on the intention to remove the Muslim cultural heritage from the accusations of backwardness, as well as the desire to form a counterweight to "Western ideas and institutions" (p.70).

According to A. E. Meyer, a number of factors objectively contribute to the final implementation of international human rights standards in the political life of the Middle East countries. First of all, it draws attention to the fact that the sovereign statehood acquired by the majority of these countries during the collapse of the colonial system after the end of World War II, brought them the status of subjects of international law and participants in the system of interstate relations, which operates under the auspices of the UN. The implementation of international human rights standards in the Middle East is also facilitated by the modernization process taking place there, as it involves transferring to the local soil such borrowings from the West as the principle of building national statehood through the organization of state power and governance on the basis of constitutionalism, through the legislative approval of the institution of citizenship. Naturally, with such a turn of events, there should be a place for the implementation of international legal norms on human rights. Finally, in the process of modernization, not only society is transformed: Islamic institutions are adapting to the changes that are taking place, and Muslim thought is increasingly involved in the search for an answer to the needs of our time.

Analysis of the participation of representatives of the" Islamic group " of UN member states in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 allowed A. E. Meyer to understand that all of them were guided by the primary desire to fix the equal status of their countries within the world community, based on a common appeal to human rights. The adoption of the declaration was seen, as the Syrian delegate said, as evidence of "the progress of civilization", still slow, but very significant for peoples who have been subjected to centuries of oppression and tyranny. All the peoples of the world, the representative of Pakistan insisted, should recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a "civilized code of conduct" in the sphere of not only international relations, but also domestic affairs. The discussion of the draft declaration revealed a mixed perception of this document by some representatives of the "Islamic group". This was fully reflected in the debates surrounding articles 16 and 18. Article 16 stipulated equal rights of women and men in the sphere of family and marriage relations. Article 18 stated: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression-

page 209
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without hindrance and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas by any means and regardless of frontiers."

Covering the course of the debate around article 16, A. E. Meyer drew attention to the conflict that arose then among the participants of the "Islamic group" itself. Representatives of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria opposed the adoption of the article, saying that a woman has the right to have only the full rights in family life that are given to her by the laws of the country. This argument, the representative of Pakistan then noted, is in the hands of countries with legislation that discriminates against women, since it legalizes and maintains its legal force.

As for the objections of the delegations of Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia to the adoption of article 18, A. E. Meyer did not avoid a one-sided and essentially incorrect approach to understanding the main reasons for such statements. In her view, the issue boiled down to the incompatibility of freedom of thought, conscience and religious freedom with the Islamic ban on changing one's religion. Speeches expressing concern about the use of the right to religious freedom for political (religious-political) purposes were ignored. Thus, the delegate from Egypt noted that raising the issue of freedom of religion can be seen as encouraging, albeit unintentionally, certain machinations of well-known missions in the East. This attack on those Christian missionaries who were complicit in colonialism was supported in principle by the representative of Pakistan, who expressed concern about the possible "misuse" of freedom of religion and belief. Among the UN member states with a professing Islamic population, North Yemen and Saudi Arabia did not vote for the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the end.

Noting in general the constructive participation of Muslim States in the subsequent development of international conventions on human rights, A. E. Meyer drew the reader's attention to the significant difficulties in implementing these international legal acts. In recent years, according to her conclusion, problems related to the transformation of the traditional family structure, as well as the moral aspects of the relationship between the sexes, have caused particular complications. It is becoming clear that Muslim conservative regimes are on a par with conservative Catholics in their approaches to solving the problem, and on a number of issues they are also on a par with the leadership of the Republican Party in the United States.

It is quite significant that Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Mali, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia have surpassed the United States in the number of international human rights conventions they have ratified, although not without reservations. Unlike Saudi Arabia, for example, the United States has not ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (1979) or the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).

However, A. E. Meyer did not ignore the manifestations of discrimination against women and religious minorities that still make themselves felt in many countries of the Muslim world (Chapters 5, 6, 7). In chapter 8, she highlighted in detail the question of the peculiarity of the interpretation of the concept of religious freedom in the Muslim East. Speaking about the fact that currently Muslim thought is characterized by a variety of points of view regarding the relationship between Islamic and international human rights, the author notes the tendency to form a "regional system" of these rights in the Middle East. The researcher sees its great practical significance in the fact that over time it will be able to provide more effective protection of human rights in countries of traditional Islam than that currently provided by international law. In principle, this conclusion is not unexpected for Oriental and legal studies. Five years earlier, a prominent Russian expert in the study of Muslim law, L. R. Syukiyainen, noted that the search for an "Islamic" approach to human rights had entered the mainstream of legal thought in Islam. In the course of such a search, two trends were identified: "the line towards cultural and civilizational originality, the uniqueness of Sharia, which opposes other legal systems, and the movement along the path of globalization towards the convergence of Islamic legal thought with global approaches to human rights (L. R. Syukiyainen, Islamic Concept of Human Rights // Human rights. The end of the century, trends, prospects. M.: Norma, 2002. S. 317).

Permanent link to this publication: