Muslim Governance and the Duty to Protect

Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):15-19 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In this response to Johnson, Oh reaffirms the scholarly vision of Kelsay and Twiss, elaborates upon Muslim perspectives on human rights, and questions the emphasis on violent humanitarian interventions as part of the Responsibility to Protect mandate. Oh suggests that, in light of the historical relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim states and the aftermath of the second Iraq War, more consideration be given to the rebuilding of Muslim-majority societies. Oh also highlights the concept of duty as a religiously based ideal to which governments of Muslim nations ought to be held



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 94,659

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Religious Freedom and Muslim States.Hwa Yung - 1991 - Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 8 (2):16-22.
A response to David Hollenbach and Sohail H. Hashmi. [REVIEW]Irene Oh - 2010 - Journal of Religious Ethics 38 (3):594-597.


Added to PP

34 (#467,954)

6 months
10 (#397,791)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Arguing the Just War in Islam.John Kelsay - 2007 - Harvard University Press.
The rights of God: Islam, human rights, and comparative ethics.Irene Oh - 2007 - Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Religion, Violence, and Human Rights.James Turner Johnson - 2013 - Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):1-14.

Add more references