They dont seem contradicting ...esp when they can go side by side
Democracy as defined by Abraham Lincoln is rule of the people, by the people, for the people.
UN is a foreign body.
That a country can choose to recognize or not recognize.
How in the hell, a Foreign body such as UN, became an ESSENTIAL part of democracy? Let me tell you. It is NOT.
UN is Not an essential part of democracy. It is something indifferent to it.
Democracy means, people can select their own leader of choose, through representatives. This practice is not against Islam.
In democracy, people can make their own laws, through representative.
Human Rights is a subjective term. This means. If someone finds something to be "good" another can find it to be "bad". Thus the perception of what is "good" and "bad" changes from person to person, peoples to peoples.
If the democratic country wants to pass a law of "human rights" It shall do so, according to its own interpretation of what "human rights" are. NOT, according to what the UN thinks or not, or what any other organization out there in the world thinks.
Get it?
There are dozens of definitions of what "Human Rights" are, and one of the definition of Human Rights, out of many is of Islam.
So if the democratic country wants, it can adopt the Islamic Definition of "Human Rights". The same country can also adopt the definition of "Human Rights" of the UN if it chooses so, or even the definition of "humans rights" of the KKK, for that matter.
Thus, neither, UN, Islam or KKK are ESSENTIAL for a democracy. In this scenario. UN definition of Human Rights is as relevant or irrelevant as Islam's definition of human rights.
To claim, UN definition of human rights is "essential" to democracy, but some how Islams definition of "human Rights" is "against" democracy. Is quite a stupid argument that does not even make ANY sense at all.
Thus I believe people who are arguing this have no idea what they are talking about, and are trolling hardcore.