HUQUQ, which means, among other things, rights, is more than human rights. The Arabic word, HUQUQ, is derived from the root from which the words for “fact”, “truth”, “reality”, are derived. The connection is remarkable.
The HUQUQ Project, in its digital and print forms, is the culmination of decades of research and teaching on the subject of human rights. Building on the vast body of knowledge covering human rights since the Enlightenment that shone on the Western world, examining the rights legacy of the Islamic civilization since the 7th century, and reflecting on historical and current events that touch on rights, we aim to remove the word “Human” from “Human Rights” to be able to advance a holistic vision for rights that can be claimed by everything by virtue of their existence. The expansion of the notion of rights is not an accommodation, it is a remedial measure stemming from the idea that the privileging of humans, especially, “certain humans” is the root cause of abuse and degradation of a universe that is shared by all–living and non-living beings.
This holistic vision is the outcome of applying the principles of Systems Thinking Framework to “human rights” as a concept and as lived experience across cultures and over time.
— Prof. Ahmed Souaiaia; PI, HUQUQ Research and Mentoring Project
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 […]
The Instrumentalization of Human Rights is the Most Serious Threat to Human Rights
Abstract: Generally, human rights are claims made by disempowered social groups that those with power over them must do for them or must not do to them. As such, these rights can be universal. But so is the abuse of such rights because of the universality of power systems—all human societies, throughout history and across culture, have been under some form of governing entities that enjoyed and exerted power over those under their rule. Subsequently, no government can be beyond reproach when it comes to human rights abuse. Yet, when human rights abuses take place in Muslim-majority countries, Western governments impose sanctions and Western media provide extensive coverage of instances of abuse. But when similar or even more egregious or persistent human rights abuses take place in a Western country, Western governments and media outlets ignore the event or treated it like an isolated secondary event. What is behind the difference in reactions and what is the effect of ignoring human rights abuses when they happen in Western societies on human rights?