About HUQUQ
HUQUQ, an Arabic term meaning rights, also derives from the same linguistic root as the words for truth, fact, and reality. This etymological connection is profoundly meaningful, reflecting a vision of rights that are not merely legal or political constructs, but intrinsic dimensions of existence and truth itself.
The HUQUQ Project, in both its digital and print forms, represents the culmination of decades of research and teaching on the theory and practice of rights. Drawing upon the vast intellectual heritage of human rights discourse—from the Enlightenment traditions that shaped Western thought, to the rich rights legacy within Islamic civilization since the seventh century, and through the examination of historical and contemporary events—HUQUQ seeks to reimagine what rights truly mean.
Our goal is to move beyond the anthropocentric limitations implied in the term “human rights”, and to articulate a holistic conception of rights—one that recognizes the entitlement of all forms of existence, living and non-living alike, by virtue of their being. This expansion is not an act of accommodation, but a remedial correction of the deeply rooted hierarchies that have privileged certain humans over others and, in doing so, contributed to the degradation of the shared universe.
This comprehensive and integrative vision emerges from the application of the Systems Thinking Framework (STF) to the study of rights—as both a conceptual construct and a lived experience—across cultures, civilizations, and time.
— Prof. Ahmed E. Souaiaia
Principal Investigator, HUQUQ Research and Mentoring Project
.
Unprecedented Decision–the United States refuses to review its human rights record
In a move with profound implications for the international human rights architecture, the United States has formally boycotted its scheduled Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva—marking only the second instance in the history of the UPR mechanism (established in 2008) that a state has refused to participate in its own peer review. This unprecedented decision—confirmed by the U.S. Mission in Geneva and enacted under President Donald Trump’s renewed administration—represents not merely procedural noncompliance, but a deliberate recalibration of U.S. foreign policy that positions human rights norms as dispensable instruments of diplomacy rather than binding obligations of governance. The UPR, a cornerstone of multilateral human rights accountability, mandates that all 193 UN member states undergo peer scrutiny of their domestic rights records every four to five years. Its design embodies the principle of equality of obligation: regardless of geopolitical stature, every state submits to the same process of reporting, questioning, and recommendation. The U.S., long a vocal proponent—indeed, frequent enforcer—of this very system, now stands in open defiance of it. As one former senior U.S. official observed, with poignant irony: “It’s tragic and deeply ironic that we helped to create the norms as well as this process that we are now backing out of.” This refusal to report is especially striking given historical precedent. During Trump’s first term, the United States withdrew from the Human Rights Council in 2018, citing perceived anti-Israel bias—a claim repeatedly challenged by legal scholars and UN rapporteurs alike—but nonetheless participated in its 2020 UPR. The current refusal, therefore, cannot be attributed solely to institutional grievances. Rather, it signals a deeper ideological shift—one in which multilateral oversight is not only inconvenient, but incompatible with an emerging vision of sovereignty untethered from international legal accountability. A Pattern of Exceptionalism, Amplified The U.S. position must be situated within a broader trajectory of selective norm enforcement. For decades, successive administrations—from both major parties—have instrumentalized human rights discourse to justify coercive measures against geopolitical adversaries. Sanctions regimes imposed on states such as Iraq (1990s), Venezuela, Iran, and Syria—often framed as responses to human rights violations—have demonstrably contributed to mass civilian suffering, including malnutrition, preventable disease, and collapse of public health infrastructure (Gordon, 2020; Reinert, 2023). Military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere were legitimized through appeals to the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), even as post-invasion chaos precipitated new cycles of violence and displacement. Yet when scrutiny turns inward, the rhetoric falters. The current administration has intensified domestic policies that rights monitors describe as systemic violations: the militarization of immigration enforcement—including reported lethal interdictions of suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean; deployment of National Guard units to suppress urban protests; suppression of academic and artistic expression under vague “anti-subversion” directives; and the systematic dismantling of legal safeguards for dissent (ACLU, 2025; Abolitionist Law Center, 2025). In this context, UPR abstention functions not as omission, but as preemptive insulation—a refusal to allow international legal frameworks to interfere with internal governance choices, however repressive. The Legitimacy […]
The First Step to Genocide Is a Word
The Way Dehumanization Paves the Path to Atrocity Every genocide and every crime against humanity is rooted in one deliberate act: the dehumanization of its victims. Study any instance of genocide, mass atrocity, war crime, or systematic violence—and you will find a consistent, chilling pattern. Before the violence begins, a narrative is constructed to justify it; as it unfolds, that same narrative legitimizes it; and once it ends, the narrative whitewashes it. At the heart of this process lies the dehumanization of the targeted group. We saw this in Syria, where supremacist factions used explicit, degrading language to label religious, ethnic, and secular communities as subhuman. They fabricated stories of atrocities allegedly committed by these groups, framing their own brutal campaigns as “self-defense” or “retribution.” Even the most mundane actions by members of the targeted communities were twisted into evidence of sinister, premeditated aggression—conveniently justifying future acts of mass violence as necessary retaliation. More recently, Israeli leaders—preparing for what would become one of the most extreme asymmetrical wars in modern history—began dehumanizing Palestinians as early as October 8, 2023, calling them “human animals.” Ancient biblical rhetoric was invoked to rationalize the killing of children (Amalek), while labels like “terrorism” and “antisemitism” were weaponized to mobilize public support and shield actions now widely described by credible human rights organizations and scholars as genocidal. Ending the violence in Gaza will not extinguish the deeper impulse that makes such atrocities possible: the reflexive, self-serving belief that some lives are less human than others. This impulse thrives on the false hierarchy it creates—the convenient fiction that dehumanizing an opponent justifies any cruelty. It always begins with a word: calling a people subhuman.
The Abuse of Power as the Root Cause of Human Rights Violations
Power can be defined as the determining system that produces outcomes in the shortest time possible. In social contexts, this form of power is exemplified by the authority of the state—particularly the executive branch in systems governed by a tripartite model (legislative, judicial, and executive), or by a singular authority figure in centralized systems (king, emir, sultan, ruler). Abuse of power refers to any action that exceeds the legitimate authority of the power holder. The most immediate and common form of abuse is the expansion of one’s power beyond its original limits. Crucially, human rights violations are not exclusive to authoritarian systems; they are a universal feature of governance. All governing systems—whether democratic or autocratic—violate the rights of some social groups. Therefore, the challenge of human rights should not be framed around the complete eradication of abuses, or the establishment of a fixed list of “non-negotiable” rights. Rather, the focus should be on creating institutions that limit harm, constrain the abuse of power, and provide systems of accountability. Since power structures inherently produce human rights violations, one way to fully eliminate such violations would be to eliminate those power structures themselves. However, this is neither possible nor desirable, as human societies require institutions of governance and social control to manage the inherent conflicts resulting from competing interests, scarcity of resources, and other factors. The more realistic and practical course of action is to reform power systems in ways that contain their potential for abuse and ensure that any resulting harm can be addressed. This systems-level approach is reinforced by examining the behavior of power structures and power holders. All governing authorities work—explicitly or implicitly—to embed elements that secure long-term advantage into the governing systems. This tendency is observable on both national and global levels. At the national level, most political systems are designed not just to distribute power, but to preserve advantage for particular social groups. In the United States, for example, the structure of the Senate disproportionately empowers less populous states—many of which are historically aligned with specific racial or economic groups—over more populous and diverse ones. The result is an institutional bias that grants outsized influence to certain constituencies while diluting the political power of others. Gerrymandering, or the manipulation of district boundaries for partisan or demographic advantage, further illustrates how electoral systems are designed to empower some and disempower others. These are not technical or accidental features; they are deliberate efforts to preserve political control and social hierarchy. At the international level, power consolidation is even more pronounced. Following the two World Wars, the victorious states have built institutions that not only reflected their dominance but entrenched it. The United Nations (UN), for example, is generally cited as a forum for international cooperation. Yet the structure of its Security Council (UNSC) reveals a system designed to permanently protect the interests of the five most powerful countries—the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. These nations, already equipped with nuclear weapons and economic dominance, secured permanent seats […]
The Perils of Individualism
How Rooting Human Rights in Individualism Fuels Supremacism and Atrocity by Demhas The modern conception of human rights is often rooted in individualism—placing the individual at the center of moral, political, and legal consideration. While individualism has undeniably contributed to personal freedoms and autonomy, an extreme focus on the individual can lead to dangerous distortions. Among these distortions, supremacism emerges as a byproduct of unchecked individual entitlement, and history has shown that supremacism is a powerful driver of human rights atrocities. At its core, individualism champions self-interest, autonomy, and personal achievement. While these values can encourage creativity and progress, they also risk fostering an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement. When individuals or groups internalize the idea that their rights and desires take precedence over those of others, a supremacist mindset can take root. Supremacism—whether based on race, nationality, religion, or ideology—relies on the belief that certain individuals or groups are inherently superior and therefore justified in exerting control over others. History provides numerous examples where supremacist ideologies, deeply intertwined with extreme individualist thinking, have led to some of the worst human rights violations. Colonialism, for instance, was largely driven by the belief that European individuals had a superior right to land, resources, and governance over indigenous populations. Similarly, racial segregation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing have often been justified by supremacist narratives that elevate certain groups above others, leading to systematic oppression and violence. The 20th century bore witness to extreme individualist and supremacist ideologies culminating in mass atrocities. The Nazi regime’s genocidal campaign was fueled by a belief in Aryan supremacy, where individual entitlement to power translated into state-sponsored extermination. Likewise, totalitarian regimes that exalted individual leaders to the status of infallible rulers—often portraying them as the ultimate embodiment of national or ideological supremacy—resulted in widespread repression and crimes against humanity. The link between supremacism and human rights atrocities lies in the entitlement to control. A supremacist—driven by an extreme sense of individualism—feels justified in imposing their will upon others, whether through political dominance, economic exploitation, or outright violence. This entitlement disregards the dignity and autonomy of others, effectively nullifying the foundational principles of human rights. To counteract this dangerous trajectory, human rights must be framed not merely as individual entitlements but as mutual obligations. A balance must be struck between individual freedoms and collective responsibilities. Recognizing the interconnectedness of humanity and the moral equality of all individuals can serve as a safeguard against supremacist ideologies that lead to oppression and violence. Instead of championing a radical form of individualism that prioritizes self-interest at the expense of others, human rights discourse must emphasize the importance of solidarity, empathy, and shared dignity. Ultimately, if human rights continue to be solely grounded in individualism without accountability to the collective good, they risk being manipulated to justify control, oppression, and even atrocities. Supremacism thrives on the unchecked entitlement of the individual or the dominant group, leading to historical and ongoing violations of human rights. To prevent such dangers, a more balanced, collective, […]
Review of “Muslims and the Western Conception of Rights”: Human Rights Beyond the Ideals
It has been 1,415 years since the end of the Jāhiliyya — a concept often referenced by Muslim thinkers as a pivotal turning point in human history. This moment was expected to usher in an era of justice. But has it? The promise of that age — justice, dignity, and knowledge — remains an unfinished project. It is a goal toward which many, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, continue to strive. The end of Jāhiliyya was not merely a historical event; it marked the beginning of an enduring challenge — to continually struggle for a more just world. As contemporary Muslim scholars like Abdulaziz Sachedina argue, the Prophet Muhammad’s message represented more than a religious break with Arabia’s pagan past. It was a profound moral and civilizational transformation. For Sachedina, the Qur’an introduced a new ethical consciousness centered on human dignity, justice, and moral agency — values that strongly resonate with modern human rights principles. Sachedina contends that the Qur’an is not limited to theological or metaphysical concerns; it speaks directly to the conditions of human life. It addresses the disenfranchised and the oppressed, offering not only spiritual guidance but also a moral vision for society. The Qur’anic declaration that God has honored all the children of Adam (Qur’an 17:70), in Sachedina’s interpretation, affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every human being — regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender. Thus, the Islamic break from Jāhiliyya marked not only the embrace of monotheism but also a radical ethical reordering of human relationships. Central to this transformation is the Qur’anic view of the human being as a moral agent — accountable not through blind obedience, but through reason, conscience, and ethical action. For Sachedina, this anticipates a democratic ethos: the belief that people are capable of self-rule, that authority must be accountable, and that no human being has the right to dominate another unjustly. In contrast to the hierarchical and often arbitrary power structures of the Jāhiliyya era, the Qur’an presented justice as a divine imperative. Despite this ethical foundation, Sachedina acknowledges that over time, the moral vitality of the Qur’anic message was constrained by the emergence of rigid legal schools and political authoritarianism. Classical jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), while offering valuable insights, often evolved in contexts where preserving power took precedence over promoting justice. In areas such as women’s rights, religious freedom, and political dissent, Islamic law as historically practiced frequently fell short of the Qur’an’s moral ideals. To address this divergence, Sachedina advocates not a return to Islamic law alone, but to Islamic ethics. He calls for a renewal of the Muslim intellectual tradition rooted in ijtihād — independent, reasoned interpretation — and oriented toward contemporary challenges such as human rights, democracy, and pluralism. Importantly, he argues that Islam does not need to borrow from Western thought to achieve this; the resources for a robust human rights framework already exist within the Islamic tradition — if they are ethically reengaged. For Sachedina, then, the journey that began with the end of […]