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

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
Keywords Islam  human rights  duty  R2P (Responsibility to Protect)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/jore.12001
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,342
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Religion, Violence, and Human Rights.James Turner Johnson - 2013 - Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):1-14.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defense of the Responsibility to Protect.Luke Glanville - 2013 - Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):169-182.
International Ethics Codes and the Duty to Protect.Mark M. Leach - 2009 - In James L. Werth, Elizabeth Reynolds Welfel & G. Andrew H. Benjamin (eds.), The Duty to Protect: Ethical, Legal, and Professional Considerations for Mental Health Professionals. American Psychological Association.
Women's Rights in Muslim Societies: Lessons From the Moroccan Experience.N. Guessous - 2012 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 38 (4-5):525-533.


Added to PP index

Total views
20 ( #482,929 of 2,326,050 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #650,227 of 2,326,050 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes